Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN

DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF

The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:

I have received your Addresses praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Shipping Transport) (Hong Kong) Order 2000 and the Double Taxation Relief (Taxation on Income) (Norway) Order 2000 be made in the form of the drafts laid before your House.

I will comply with your request.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

KENT COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [LORDS]

Motion made,
That the promoters of the Kent County Council Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with it, if they think fit, in the next session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so is lodged in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present session and that all fees due up to that date have been paid;
That, if the bill is brought from the Lords in the next session, a declaration signed by the agent shall he deposited in the Private Bill Office, stating that the bill is the same in every respect as the bill brought from the Lords in the present session;
That the Clerk in the Private Bill Office shall lay upon the Table of the House a certificate, that such a declaration has been deposited;
That in the next session the bill shall be deemed to have passed through every stage through which it has passed in the present session, and shall be recorded in the Journal of the House as having passed those stages;
That no further fees shall be charged to such stages.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means)

Hon. Members: Object.
To be considered on Tuesday 12 December.

MEDWAY COUNCIL BILL [LORDS]

Motion made,
That the promoters of the Medway Council Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with it, if they think fit, in the next session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so is lodged in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present session and that all fees due up to that date have been paid;
That, if the bill is brought from the Lords in the next session, a declaration signed by the agent shall be deposited in the Private Bill Office, stating that the bill is the same in every respect as the bill brought from the Lords in the present session;
That the Clerk in the Private Bill Office shall lay upon the Table of the House a certificate, that such a declaration has been deposited;

That in the next session the bill shall be deemed to have passed through every stage through which it has passed in the present session, and shall be recorded in the Journal of the House as having passed those stages;
That no further fees shall be charged to such stages.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)

Hon. Members: Object.
To be considered on Tuesday 12 December.

Oral Answers to Questions

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Abandoned Cars

Mr. Jonathan Shaw: What action his Department is taking to assist local authorities to dispose of abandoned cars. [138935]

The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): We are very much aware that, because of falling scrap prices, abandoned vehicles are a growing problem. My officials are currently in discussion with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, the Local Government Association and the Association of Chief Police Officers to identify solutions and ways of dealing with the issue.

Mr. Shaw: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. My local authority, Medway council, has seen its costs for dealing with abandoned cars rise by more than £20,000 this year. That affects urban areas in Chatham and rural areas such as Burham in my constituency. As my right hon. Friend rightly says, with the falling price of scrap and with car prices coming down, the problem will get worse and worse. Will he examine the Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978, which deals with the matter? Instead of cars being dealt with in the same way as leaves, perhaps we should amend the law so that fines are higher and responsibility is put on car owners, rather than on council tax payers.

Mr. Meacher: I have a great deal of sympathy with my hon. Friend's remarks. We have flagged up the possible need for primary legislation in any waste or environment Bill, and we shall certainly re-examine the Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978. I note the steps that have been taken in my hon. Friend's constituency to pilot a new multi-agency approach to abandoned vehicles. Untaxed vehicles will be wheel-clamped by a DVLA contractor and, if the vehicle is not taxed within 24 hours, it will be removed to a car pound and disposed of within 35 days. We are seriously considering that as a model.

Urban Regeneration

Mr. Richard Burden: If he will make a statement on the impact of transport investment on urban regeneration. [138936]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): The urban White Paper published on 16 November sets out a long-term vision for revitalising our urban areas. New transport investment, through the £180 billion programme in our 10-year plan for transport, obviously has a key role to play. This substantial increase in funding will, over the next 10 years, deliver significantly better transport, boost regeneration, provide better access to jobs and services, and make a real difference to the quality of life in our towns and cities.

Mr. Burden: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. One of the great features of transport investment is that it can often unlock much more generalised regeneration. I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the Northfield regeneration plan, under which a modest amount of transport investment would revitalise a local shopping centre in a deprived industrial area, improve leisure facilities and lead to greatly enhanced environmental improvements in the area. I ask her to examine those aspects in the weeks and months ahead.

Ms Hughes: I agree that the scheme that my hon. Friend outlines is a good example of the essential link between transport improvements and urban regeneration. In addition to the benefits to which he has drawn attention, access to Longbridge would be improved. The scheme would regenerate the south-western sector of Birmingham. My hon. Friend knows that the scheme is being evaluated as part of the local transport plan system. I cannot pre-empt an announcement, but I can tell him that under the 10-year plan we are doubling the money that is available to fund local transport plans next year to more than £1.5 billion.

Sir Sydney Chapman: Does the Minister agree that central to the success of urban regeneration, which we all want to see, is not only a joint Cabinet committee but a Minister with specific responsibility? Will she ascertain whether that can be obtained? As I said to the Secretary of State last week, there are bound to be differences between Departments. We need a Minister with the power to make decisions.

Ms Hughes: Fundamentally, effective regeneration involves co-ordinating all Whitehall Departments. That emerged from the Conservative party's proposals. However, there is a fundamental problem: the Conservative party cannot match our investment in transport and in regeneration because it has to contend with a £16 billion tax cut guarantee.

Ms Margaret Moran: Is my hon. Friend aware of the representations that have been made by Luton chamber of commerce on behalf of Luton airport, Vauxhall and Whitbread, among other major businesses, on the importance of the east Luton road scheme between junction 10 and Luton airport? That

scheme has the potential to regenerate the area, to open a business park and to create more than 5,000 new jobs? Will my hon. Friend seriously consider allocating some of the additional funding to which she has referred to the scheme, which would have a major regeneration impact in my constituency?

Ms Hughes: My hon. Friend outlines another good example of the essential links between transport and regeneration. However, she knows that the scheme to which she refers is in the local transport plan. We shall make announcements on that shortly.

London Underground

Mr. Tom Brake: If he will make a statement on progress in establishing the public-private partnership for London Underground. [138937]

The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): Best and final offers for the two deep tube contracts were received by London Transport on 20 November, and three bids for the subsurface contract are being evaluated. The public-private partnership is well on course to deliver the high and stable funding that London Underground has been deprived of for so long under the old public sector financing rules under different Administrations.

Mr. Brake: I thank the Secretary of State for his response. Will he explain why Mr. Kiley has not been given full financial information about the PPP bids? What objection does the right hon. Gentleman have to making the information fully available, given that Mr. Kiley has signed a confidentiality agreement? Will he oppose any High Court action initiated by the Mayor? Does he agree with the Mayor that the lack of financial information has meant that he has been unable to put together a programme of action to reduce breakdowns on the tube, which is putting passenger safety at risk?

Mr. Prescott: It is just not true that Mr. Kiley has not been given all the information. He has been given all the information that is available. More than 15 different papers—(Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman must accept what I say to him. I would not lie to the House. Mr. Kiley has not received information about the final details that are now being assessed in the context of the commercial aspects of the best and final offers. He has not been given information on a revised consolidated public sector comparator. He was given the baseline for March 2000. Further development on the comparator will not be completed until the negotiations have come to an end. As I understand it, the Mayor is taking no legal action, and there is no threat to safety.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is massive public disquiet about the public-private partnership for London Underground? Does he accept also that the public are opposed to the break-up of the underground system in any shape or form, and that they want to see it as a unitary organisation that is funded and run by the public? Does he accept that there is a public mandate in the mayoral election to ensure that we retain a wholly publicly owned,


publicly financed and publicly run tube system in London, which will guarantee the best safety that it is possible to achieve?

Mr. Prescott: We are making changes to London Underground because the public are fed up with insufficient investment in the underground system over the best part of the last 20 to 30 years. Governments have not faced up to the responsibility of finding that investment, largely because the Treasury and Government change every three to five years. We are seeking to give London Underground an investment programme for 25 to 30 years. That is what is needed on the underground and that is what we intend to produce.

Mr. Archie Norman: Is it not the case that the progress of the PPP is slower than one of the express trains that the Deputy Prime Minister and I have shared from London to Doncaster? Two years
ago—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Deputy Prime Minister was given a hearing and the hon. Gentleman will be given a hearing, too.

Mr. Norman: Does the Secretary of State remember saying two years ago that if the PPP was delayed, he would hand over responsibility for the tube? Just how long must Londoners suffer before he hands that botched proposal over to a man like Bob Kiley, who knows how to run transport systems?

Mr. Prescott: I did not say that I would do that if the PPP was delayed for two years. In fact, it is proceeding according to the timetable that I set in the House and, if the hon. Gentleman wants, I can give him details. I am not sure what the Opposition would do. Are they still committed to privatisation, given that they appear to be rejecting it left, right and centre? Would they privatise the underground and guarantee that resources would be invested in it? We are making that investment and are taking a long-term approach to the problem of improving the underground.

Mr. Norman: While this whole affair drags on, Londoners must suffer a continuing deterioration in the performance of the tube. That has gone on for three and a half years, but the one thing that the Secretary of State does not want to talk about is his record. After three and a half years of failure, will he say whether there is any area in the DETR portfolio where delivery is better than that which he inherited? Is the tube a great success? Are the roads better maintained? Has the Secretary of State cut congestion? Are the railways running more smoothly? Is homelessness falling? Has the exodus from our cities been reversed? Does the Secretary of State remember saying that things could only get better?

Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman constantly forgets that his party was in power for two decades in which there was massive disinvestment in the transport industry. Surely, he must have been aware of that when he was at Railtrack, which made many of the mistakes. When he was a Railtrack director, many of those disinvestment mistakes were already being made. On the question of

whether we have improved the situation, a £180 billion investment in transport is way beyond what the Tory Administration gave or even planned for.

Highway Maintenance

Mr. Ian Stewart: What response he has received from local government to his proposals on highway maintenance. [138938]

Mr. Ivan Henderson: What plans he has to deal with the repair backlog on roads. [138942]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): Local government has welcomed the significant increases in resources nationally for capital expenditure on local road maintenance. As set out in "Transport 2010: The 10 Year Plan", we are committed to providing sufficient funds to tackle the backlog of expenditure—estimated at £9 billion—on carriageway, footway, bridge and street lighting maintenance in the next 10 years.

Mr. Stewart: That statement will be welcomed by my constituents in Eccles. Does it mean that local government in Salford and Greater Manchester will not have to continue the daft practice of building much-needed road calming measures on roads that are full of potholes and craters? My hon. Friend mentioned street lighting. Will he assure me that the improvement in street lighting will benefit the people of my constituency, particularly the elderly, as it will improve security and safety?

Mr. Hill: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the warm welcome that he gave to our announcement on roads maintenance. He will be aware that the previous Conservative Government left our local roads in their worst state of maintenance since records began. To restore the backlog in roads maintenance, we are providing over the next 10 years an extra £9 billion, which is 41 per cent. above current funding. In the same period, we shall also clear the appalling backlog in street lighting. Next year alone in Eccles and Salford, road maintenance funding will increase by no less than 87 per cent. The end of potholes is in sight for the people of Eccles and Salford, and, in due course, they will be able to see their well maintained roads.

Mr. Henderson: May I tell my hon. Friend the Minister how welcome the massive increase in road funding is to Essex? By 2003, it will treble to £15 million the amount given to Essex. I hope that my constituents in the villages of Parkeston and Jaywick will benefit from the increases, which should help them with the poor roads and street lighting left by the Conservative party. Has my hon. Friend received any feedback from Essex county council on that good news for Essex?

Mr. Hill: My hon. Friend is right; the increase is excellent news for Essex. I am bound, however, to refer to a news release published on the day of the announcement. It appears on Conservative central office notepaper and was written by the leader of Essex council, a certain Lord Hanningfield. It is headed "Too little, too late". The noble Lord went on to say:
This isn't new money at all.



That contrasts with the same day's news release from his cabinet member for transportation, Councillor Ron Williams. That document is headed "Major boost for road maintenance". Councillor Williams went on to say:
This is really good news for Essex. We must now look carefully at how we can invest this large settlement in the most cost-effective way to ensure greatest benefits are achieved.
I know what I trust—not the knee-jerk propaganda from Tory central office, but the honest view of the local man who really knows: Councillor Ron Williams, God bless him.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: That was great knockabout stuff from the Minister. I am most grateful to him for repeating a press release written by one of his Labour stooges. [HON. MEMBERS: "He is a Tory."] He may call himself a Tory; nevertheless my point remains.
Will the Minister explain whether we are talking about new money from central Government, or supplementary credit approval, which will mean that local government, rather than central Government, has to incur debt?

Mr. Hill: Borrowing approvals are the standard means by which the Government fund local authority capital spending. The costs of repayment and interest on the borrowing are funded through the revenue support grant settlement. Using borrowing approvals gives authorities more flexibility in using their resources. Indeed, they have been seeking such flexibility. I suppose that that is why the approvals were introduced by the previous Government.

Mr. Stephen O'Brien: Will the Minister comment on the ruling in another place that local authorities will not be required to grit their roads this winter? That could have a major effect on my constituents. My area contains the Winsford rock salt mine, the country's sole supplier of rock salt for gritting roads, so jobs could be at stake there. In addition, the ruling raises many serious issues about cutting corners and putting lives at risk.

Mr. Hill: The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely important point. We are aware of the judgment to which he referred, and we are studying its implications carefully. We hope to make an announcement in due course.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: Does my hon. Friend have any plans to return to local authorities powers to co-ordinate the disruption caused by utilities? In Cambridge there has been complete gridlock during the past few weeks, as every major road into the city has been dug up by a different utility.

Mr. Hill: My hon. Friend makes an extremely serious point that is universally understood. Street works are a problem in all our cities throughout the country. First, my hon. Friend will be aware that the New Roads and Streetworks Act 1991 allows local authorities to charge utilities for overstaying in street works. We hope to introduce regulations to implement that shortly.
Secondly, my hon. Friend will know also that the Transport Bill contains provisions for lane rental, which is widely supported. We have said that we will hold those

provisions as reserve powers for the time being, but if co-ordination of street works by utilities does not improve, those powers may be invoked in due course.

Rail Service Disruption

Mr. Michael Fabricant: If he will make a statement on recent disruption to rail services. [138939]

The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): Following meetings with the Strategic Rail Authority, myself and the Prime Minister, the industry promised a steady improvement in rail services as part of the national track recovery plan. At the most recent meeting, yesterday afternoon, Railtrack told us that it had checked two thirds of the entire track length—about 14,000 miles—including all known sites suffering from gauge corner cracking.
Railtrack has rerailed more than a third of the track identified for rerailing—that is about 110 miles. It has managed to remove 260 speed restrictions and raised the speed limit from 20 mph to 40 mph on another 139 miles. My right hon. Friend and I restated the need to return the network to normal as soon as possible, get a robust Christmas timetable in place, improve information for passengers and provide greater clarity on compensation for daily and weekly passengers. I am sure that the House will agree that all that must be carried out at the proper level of safety.

Mr. Fabricant: I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for that helpful and full answer. He will no doubt have heard of the incident last night in which a journey from London to Nottingham, which should have taken two hours, took nine. A trainload of passengers stayed in the train overnight, in darkness and without any heating. That event, of course, is not unique. Has he made any calculations about the number of people who previously travelled by rail, but who now travel by road? Does he agree with his Department's own statistics, which show that the number of fatalities on the roads is 12 times as high as the number on the railways? What is his assessment of the number of additional fatalities on the roads that will result from the disruption?

Mr. Prescott: The whole House is concerned about the time that journeys can take, including the incident that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. The House wants the railways to return to normal operations on safe railway lines. Hon. Members will be aware from our statements that it is necessary properly to check faults on our railway system. We are doing that as fast as we can, and we are talking to the industry about whether it can be done any faster while maintaining a safe and proper operation.
Clearly, a lot more people are travelling by car, and congestion will obviously increase—we can already see that happening. I have made no estimate of the increase in death rates, but I shall examine our figures and send an estimate to the hon. Gentleman. In terms of casualties and deaths, we know that railways are safer than roads, but we must keep our eye on the ball and try to improve the railway system.

Dr. David Clark: As my right hon. Friend is aware, the days leading up to Christmas are among the busiest on the railways. What discussions is he


having with the rail authorities about establishing contingency plans to meet those needs at this very busy time?

Mr. Prescott: We have been making it clear to the industry for a couple of weeks that we want a sustainable Christmas timetable. Longer journeys are clearly involved because speed restrictions are placed on lines and because it takes some time for the necessary repair work to be completed. Most passengers do not mind longer journeys, although they would prefer shorter ones, but they want to know reliable times for setting off and arriving. That is what we are trying to provide. We are also talking to the industry about a timetable for the Christmas services, which will be announced shortly.

Mr. Don Foster: Further to the answer given to the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant), does the Deputy Prime Minister accept that the nine-hour train journey from London to Nottingham provides yet more evidence of the Government's failure to get to grips with the chaos that was caused by the Tory privatisation of our railways? Does not that set alarm bells ringing for the right hon. Gentleman over his continued dogmatic plans to privatise other parts of our transport services, especially National Air Traffic Services? Will he agree to withdraw those plans to show his commitment to a safe transport service?

Mr. Prescott: I think we shall be debating that later.

Mr. Eric Martlew: In the context of the present chaos on the railways, which is due mainly to the Conservatives' privatisation, may I point out that it now takes seven hours to travel from my constituency to London? It used to take my father the same time to drive a steam train on that line. Will my right hon. Friend consider proposals to bring Railtrack into public ownership?

Mr. Prescott: As I have said, I am of course concerned about the length of journeys, but I have explained why I consider it necessary to carry out a thorough investigation of the track, and to invest in safe railway lines. We hope to have completed the investigation by the end of this year, or at least by the beginning of next year.
As my hon. Friend is well aware, the Government agreed at the outset not to renationalise rail. Our argument, which I have deployed in the House, was that providing £6 billion of compensation was not the right way of using public resources at that time. If we consider the possibility now, we must envisage two years of negotiations in the House. Moreover, I do not think that a renationalisation Bill is the people's first priority. They want a safe, operational railway with proper accountability. That is embodied in the Transport Bill—which we shall debate this afternoon—with the Strategic Rail Authority and other measures allowing us to exercise the necessary controls. It is a pity that the Tories and the Liberals have opposed those measures.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Does not the present crisis on the railway demonstrate that railway disruption is a daily crisis for hundreds of thousands of passengers, and, indeed, for the tens of thousands of staff who bear the brunt of passengers' daily complaints?
Let me point out to the Deputy Prime Minister that the railway was not handed over to him in a state of crisis. But does it not behove all politicians to apologise for the decades of under-investment, and to apologise for the way in which the railway has been handled in recent years? Is it not—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask hon. Members not to shout at the hon. Gentleman while he is speaking.

Mr. Jenkin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Is it not the responsibility of Ministers now to work with the rail industry, and to help to pull it together in an atmosphere of co-operation? No industry can survive the political assault that the Secretary of State has mounted on this industry year in, year out since coming to office.
May I also ask whether, having got rid of one chief executive of Railtrack, the right hon. Gentleman will now stop briefing against the new one?

Mr. Prescott: I think the whole House is aware, from constituents' reports and from their own experience, that travelling by rail is terrible at present. We can only hope to improve that. We apologise to the staff who are working hard to return the system to normal—we admire their efforts—and we apologise to the passengers who are suffering.
I cannot accept, however, that the rail industry was passed to us in a good state. By whatever means we measure the crisis, if we are talking about resources and investment we must conclude that the real problem with Railtrack—this is why we are spending so much time investigating the track—is the lack of investment during two decades of Tory Government.
As for the question of whether enough accountability and control existed under the last Administration, I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that it did not. I understood him to say that the fragmentation of the industry was wrong, and that the privatisation had proved to be wrong. Now he is trying to tell us that his party passed to us a railway in a good state.
We have said that we do not want to renationalise the railway. We are introducing a Strategic Rail Authority in legislation that was opposed by the Opposition when it first came to the House of Commons, and also in the House of Lords. The extra powers that we are providing to ensure that we have a proper organisation and can prevent fragmentation, and the £60 billion investment in the railway, are beyond anything that was thought up during two decades of Tory Government.

Rail Freight

Mr. David Watts: What plans he has to increase freight by rail in the UK. [138940]

Mr. Jim Dobbin: What strategy he has to improve freight capacity in the United Kingdom. [138948]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Chris Mullin): The Government have set out their long-term strategy for improving freight capacity in their 10-year plan for transport. We are also establishing the Strategic


Rail Authority, which will have a duty to promote rail freight. We are aiming for an 80 per cent. increase over the next 10 years. Only today, my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Transport announced the biggest ever grant to the Bristol Port Company to refurbish a section of the disused Portishead branch line and a link into the Royal Portsbury dock, and to establish general cargo and port terminals. It is a good example of the progress that we are making.

Mr. Watts: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply and congratulate the Government on their commitment to rail freight. However, the strategy will succeed in the north-west only if we have direct rail routes to Europe and good terminals. Can he assure me that the Government will support Central Railway's proposal to establish a direct line to Europe and the development of terminals in the north-west, especially at Parkside in my constituency?

Mr. Mullin: To take Parkside first, I understand that Railtrack's plans are in the early stages. It will, of course, need planning permission, and that is a matter for the local authority. As I have said, generous grants are available to potential customers to encourage them to switch from road to rail when it can be justified by environmental benefits.
As for the fast link to the channel tunnel and the Central Railway proposal, we have not received an application under the Transport and Works Act 1992, but when we do, it will be carefully considered.

Mr. Dobbin: My constituency is midway between the ports of Liverpool and Hull and the M1 and M6. The M60 goes straight through the middle of it, and it is surrounded by distribution parks. I have asked the local authority to carry out a feasibility study on the development of a rail freight terminal in that vicinity with direct access to and from the motorway to alleviate congestion. Is that in line with the Government's strategy for freight, and, if so, what are the possibilities of achieving it?

Mr. Mullin: It is certainly in line with the Government's strategy. As far as I am aware, there are no firm proposals for a freight terminal at Rochdale, but as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Watts), freight facilities grants are available for viable—and I stress viable—propositions.

Mr. Simon Thomas: Not one piece of freight is moved by rail in mid-Wales or rural Wales, despite the fact that that used to happen before privatisation. What plans does the Minister have to increase the movement of freight by rail through and to rural areas?

Mr. Mullin: As I said, it is certainly our aim to increase the movement of freight by rail. I am not complacent, but we have a reasonably good story to tell. After decades of decline, there has been a 22 per cent. increase since 1997 in the amount of goods moved by rail. In the same period, the volume of road freight has

remained virtually unchanged. We are heading in the right direction, but I readily acknowledge there is a great deal more to do.

Miss Anne McIntosh: Will the Minister extend freight facilities grants to smaller operators, so that they are available not just to the big boys such as English, Welsh and Scottish Railways? As for extending freight facilities to rural areas, will he ensure that rail freight heads are built only on industrial sites, not on green belt land?

Mr. Mullin: I understand that such grants are available to small and large companies, but the hon. Lady should bear in mind the fact that they are available to customers—

Mr. Michael Fabricant: Be gentle with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Mullin: I am always nice to the hon. Lady. Indeed, I try to be pleasant to all hon. Members. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."'
The hon. Lady should bear in mind the fact that the grants are available to customers to encourage them to switch from road to rail.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Does my hon. Friend recall that the Coatbridge freightliner terminal in my constituency serves a number of industries and aspects of commerce throughout the United Kingdom that export their products, especially to Europe? Given the lack of development in the adjacent Gartcosh industrial park, does he accept that there is a need to invest in freightliner transport and in industrial development, which would be in the interests of jobs for the whole of the UK as well as in my constituency?

Mr. Mullin: I cannot comment on any particular project, but I repeat that we are keen to see investment in rail freight facilities where they are thought to be viable and sustainable. Those are the key objectives.

Local Government Structures

Mr. Peter Luff: What recent representations he has received from councils concerning the abolition of the committee system in local government. [138941]

The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Ms Hilary Armstrong): Following the passage of the Local Government Act 2000, we have received a number of representations from local authorities about the implementation of part II of the Act, which makes provision for councils to adopt new constitutions involving either executive or alternative arrangements, depending on their circumstances.

Mr. Luff: Why do the Government refuse to allow Wychavon district council to include its leader's panel and streamlined committee system in the enforced consultation on new local government structures? Why,


as the leader of the council, Malcolm Meikle, says, are the Government refusing to give the citizens a real choice as to how their council is managed?

Ms Armstrong: I know that Wychavon is working hard to improve its performance, especially in planning matters, where it has a difficult history. In planning, it does not have to change the way in which it does things, although it is seeking to do that to achieve greater efficiency. Like every other council, it needs to demonstrate to its public that it has a system of operating that is efficient, but open and accountable. We are looking forward to working with Wychavon to ensure that it can get a system that delivers that.

Mr. Llew Smith: The Minister will be aware that the Government have transferred to the Welsh Assembly powers over the structure of local government, and that the Welsh Assembly has gone out to consultation on the matter. Did the Government provide any system of appeal for local authorities that disagreed with the conclusions and recommendations of the Assembly?

Ms Armstrong: That is a matter for the Welsh Assembly, so it is not one on which I will comment.

Mr. Nigel Waterson: Is it not true that, throughout the country, councillors of all parties resent being forced to abandon the committee system, as well as the extra cost of so-called modernisation—a cost estimated by the Local Government Association at £175 million? Can the Minister please explain precisely why a council with 85,000 or fewer residents is uniquely placed to deliver open and accountable local government without the new structures? What is the logic of her position, or is not the honest truth that there is none?

Ms Armstrong: The House had a full debate on that matter. I thought that the hon. Gentleman took part in it, but obviously he did not fully listen or take note. I do not like to upset him, but I have to tell him that councils throughout the land, Conservative as well as Labour and Liberal Democrat, are working with the new agenda because they want to open new ways of working with their public. They know that the public, if they are to appreciate and get the best out of public services, need a new relationship with their councils. Councils are therefore working to achieve that. Perhaps he would like to read Hansard to learn the answers to the rest of his questions.

Disadvantaged Areas

Mr. Anthony D. Wright: What resources are being put into funding renewal of disadvantaged areas in the present financial year; and if he will make a statement. [138943]

Dr. Desmond Turner: What funding his Department is providing to combat disadvantage in the most deprived communities.

The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Ms Hilary Armstrong): In addition to spending on key services such as health and education. £1.542 billion is

being spent on regeneration programmes in this financial year. By 2003-04, key services will receive an extra £33 billion a year, backed by new targets to improve outcomes in deprived areas. In addition, the neighbourhood renewal fund will provide an extra £800 million over the next three years for the most deprived areas and communities.

Mr. Wright: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Community groups and various organisations in my constituency are pleased with the way in which the Government have responded to the needs of areas such as Great Yarmouth, which is one of the most deprived in the country. It was one of the most deprived areas in the country when the Conservatives were in government, but they did not respond to the needs of such areas. The neighbourhood renewal fund, which provides a total of £4 million to my constituency, is also welcome, but will my right hon. Friend confirm that the way in which that money is spent will not be in the hands of politicians, but that the various community groups will participate fully in determining the future of the funds?

Ms Armstrong: I can confirm that although the money is to be given directly to local government bodies to address their most deprived areas, we recognise that local authorities and Government alone cannot effectively turn around areas and bridge the gap between the most deprived and the rest. We are asking local authorities to establish local strategic partnerships with their partners, including those from the community sector, so that everyone, including those who are most affected, has a part to play in ensuring that all people, wherever they live, get the same opportunities as others to prosper, to obtain educational qualifications, and so on. That is an important priority for the Government and I look forward to working with my hon. Friend and his colleagues in Great Yarmouth to make real changes there.

Dr. Desmond Turner: My right hon. Friend will be aware that east Brighton has a new deal for communities partnership—indeed, she visited it early in its development. I am happy to say that the partnership is up and running and that there is already a feeling of development and change. That feeling is very—[Interruption.] I am sorry that Conservative Members think that dealing with social exclusion is funny.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must put his question.

Dr. Turner: I defer to you, Mr. Speaker. I could not resist responding to the idiots on the other side of the Chamber.
It is too soon to be able to put numbers to the success of the new deal for communities, but it is clear from the spirit of the community that it is going to succeed. What I want to ask—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hooray!"]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should resume his seat while I am standing. His question should


have been brief, and 1 am sure that the Minister has picked up the point that he was trying to make. I call the right hon. Lady to reply.

Ms Armstrong: Brighton has indeed benefited from the new deal for communities; it will also receive money from the neighbourhood renewal fund. We are determined that all people, wherever they live—we have heard Members representing seaside towns put their case today—get real opportunities to share in the prosperity of this country. I pay tribute to the contribution that my hon. Friend has made to the east Brighton communities partnership. It is working well and I look forward to its turning areas of east Brighton around very quickly.

Mr. Christopher Chope: Are not the Minister's words so much humbug? Why is she intent on creating a new area of disadvantage in east Dorset by imposing from the centre the burden of a concessionary fares scheme on the district council without giving it any grant at all, thereby going against commitments given to East Dorset and other councils by other Ministers in her team?

Ms Armstrong: There are people in east Dorset who are elderly and disabled and want to benefit from concessionary fares, and they will benefit. The Government have put aside £53 million within the grant to meet those commitments. I hope that the East Dorset council will fulfil its commitments to the elderly and vulnerable in its neighbourhoods.

Mr. Mike Hancock: Will the Minister ask her officers to be a little more flexible, understanding and realistic about the boundaries of deprivation, particularly in densely populated areas such as Portsmouth, where single regeneration funds are so tightly ring-fenced that facilities which are necessary to offer real benefits are left outside the area? Time and again, the Minister's officers have resisted the city's request to stretch the boundaries to include those facilities.
Will the Minister also seriously consider ways in which we can clean up many of the contaminated sites located in the hearts of inner cities such as Portsmouth? Without Government help, those areas will never be redeveloped. and we will never be able to offer hope, jobs or housing to those who live in them.

Ms Armstrong: The hon. Gentleman raises a very difficult point. If we spread the jam too thinly, those who are really deprived will not benefit from it. We are determined to ensure that we concentrate effort among the most deprived in our nation, who have been neglected for far too long. The previous Administration gave them very little support.
We are putting not only effort but money into contaminated sites. Only this morning, I launched a land use database for contaminated sites, so that we know what they contain and thereby make development easier. In the pre-Budget statement, the Chancellor also created specific capital allowances enabling developers to make returns earlier when tackling contaminated sites.

Mrs. Linda Gilroy: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. She will know that in Plymouth we were very concerned about the potential

impact of updating the area cost adjustment on our efforts to deal with disadvantage, just as we are beginning to get to grips with it after a 20-year legacy of Tory under-investment. Will she confirm that when the type of specific grant that she has just mentioned is taken into account, the total gross settlement for local government funding in Plymouth will very specifically recognise the challenges that we still face? Additionally, has she made any estimate of the impact that £55 million worth of cuts—the Tory spending plans—would have on local government spending in Plymouth?

Ms Armstrong: I have not made such an estimate, but I have noted the considerable extra investment that the Government have made in Plymouth. Plymouth will benefit from the neighbourhood renewal fund. Additionally, it is receiving about £42 million from European structural funds, in the objective 2 programme, and, for the next two years, it will receive a share of the £120 million for the objective 2 programme for the south-west. Plymouth also receives special funding because of health and education action zones and the new deal for communities funding.
Moreover, because we have introduced the floor system in the local government settlement, Plymouth will receive a 3.2 per cent. increase, rather than the 2.1 per cent. that it might have expected if we had not provided that funding. The Government are putting substantial extra money into local government to ensure the provision of effective services, so that every citizen can recognise and know the extra value that public services add to his or her quality of life.

Mr. Tim Loughton: Will the Minister confirm that spending on urban regeneration in deprived areas of £5.7 billion in the first four years of this Government falls short of the £6.1 billion provided in the last four years of the Conservative Government? Furthermore, will she confirm that, on close analysis of the pre-Budget report measures that form the centrepiece of the over-hyped urban White Paper, the number of flats over shops that will be created is estimated at only 1,000 per year over five years, out of the 3.8 million new homes that we supposedly need; that the number of homes derelict for 10 years attracting tax relief is so minimal that she is not able to calculate it; and that the biggest beneficiaries of stamp duty exemptions in the undefined disadvantaged areas are likely to be the £750,000 Georgian terraces owned by Labour luvvies in Islington?

Ms Armstrong: I never know whether to take the hon. Gentleman seriously; I certainly do not think that anyone else in the House does. He has once again got it wrong. Spending on regeneration programmes will be £1.542 billion in the current year, compared with £1.38 billion in 1996-97. The Government are demonstrating an absolute commitment to regeneration.
The hon. Gentleman should include in the figures programmes from other Departments that are clearly directed to urban regeneration. Education and investment in skills are part of that. If only the previous Government had understood the importance of education and skills development to some of our poorer areas, the would not


be in the state that they are in now. That Government had a shameful record and many of us are still paying for it in our communities. We are determined to reverse that.

Recycling Targets

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: What targets he has set local authorities for recycling. [138944]

The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): We are setting challenging statutory targets for each English local authority, which together will increase recycling and composting of household waste to at least 17 per cent. by 2003-04 and 25 per cent. by 2005-06. We have also set more demanding targets for the longer term: to recycle or compost at least 30 per cent. by 2010 and at least 33 per cent. by 2015. We will keep those under review and raise them if greater benefits can be achieved cost-effectively.

Mr. Griffiths: Does my right hon. Friend realise the vital role that recycling plays in conserving our scarce resources for future generations, and that recycling companies are under strong commercial pressures? What tangible support are the Government giving such companies to ensure that they can continue and expand their activities?

Mr. Meacher: We are certainly keen to help business to develop markets for recycled, materials. Indeed, there is very little point in collecting and recycling materials if they cannot be sold on for some useful purpose. That is exactly why we have set up WRAP—the waste resources action programme—with backing of £30 million. The programme will focus on new uses and applications for recyclate and tackle the market barriers to increased recycling. All of that should provide considerable new business opportunities for recycling.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: Does the Minister understand that one can move very quickly to much higher targets for recycling than the Government have set? In the borough of Reigate and Banstead, for example, we have gone from 0 to 25 per cent. in four years. I urge him to keep the targets under review and to raise them in the light of international and United Kingdom experience as it becomes clear that higher levels can be sustained.

Mr. Meacher: We are extremely keen to do that and I am very glad to hear of the excellent example of Reigate. We inherited a household recycling rate of 6 per cent. We have already raised that by about 50 per cent. The targets are doubling within three years and trebling within five. I believe that it is possible for many local authorities to

achieve 35 per cent. or more within a decade. We are certainly keen to learn best practice from areas such as Reigate.

Mr. Phil Sawford: I applaud my right hon. Friend's efforts to increase the volume of domestic recycling, but is he aware that many small and medium-sized businesses want to play their part but find that the facilities are not readily available for simple items such as office paper? Will he explore ways in which local authorities can co-operate with local business communities to increase the volume of recycling of non-domestic waste?

Mr. Meacher: We are certainly keen for local authorities to assist and collaborate with business. Indeed, they will have to do so if they are to achieve the very tough recycling targets. Non-domestic waste materials account for most of the waste stream—probably five or six times the level of household waste—and, again through WRAP, we are extremely keen to have an increase in recyclate from businesses as well as from households, and we shall explore the best means of achieving that.

Mobile Phone Masts

Mr. Peter Atkinson: If he will make a statement on the operation of planning controls on mobile phone masts. [138945]

The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Nick Raynsford): Planning controls on telecommunications development are aimed at facilitating the rollout of a modern telecommunications network and at the same time protecting the environment. A consultation exercise seeking views on possible changes to these controls ended on 31 October. We are currently analysing responses and we shall announce any changes as soon as is practicable.

Mr. Atkinson: I hope that the Minister will lift his objection to giving local authorities power to consider such applications properly and repeal their permitted powers in relation to masts. Local residents want these issues to be debated and discussed in full, so that their concerns about health, safety and planning design can be considered properly.

Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman will know that the Government have made one change already to allow greater opportunity for consultation in the general permitted development order procedures. In the consultation that ended on 31 October, we canvassed other possibilities that would allow the recommendations of the Stewart report to be given effect and thus offer greater opportunity for local communities to express their concerns. However, we want to ensure at the same time that there is a continuing rollout of the telecommunications network. That is what all of us, as individual users of mobile telephones, want. There is a tension between people's wish to have access to a service without a poor signal, the need to protect the environment and amenity, and the need to respond to the public's concerns. We are seeking a balanced response.

Rural White Paper

The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the White Paper on the future of rural England, published today and produced jointly by my Department and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I am also publishing the Government's response to the Select Committee's report on the rural White Paper. Copies have been placed in the Library.
A common message runs through this White Paper and the urban White Paper. Both are about tackling the real issues that matter to people—jobs, housing, services, transport and having a real say in what happens locally. We want communities in which economic prosperity, social justice and a healthy environment go hand in hand.
Much of rural Britain is thriving, but there are real problems and many of them have got worse over the past 20 years. For example, farm incomes have fallen by 60 per cent. in five years, many families cannot afford to live in the place where they grew up, and seven out of 10 of our poorest counties are rural.
Our major consultation with rural communities showed that person after person in rural areas complained that their basic services had disappeared over the past two decades. In that period, thousands of rural bus services were shut down, leaving only one in four parishes with a daily service, and 450 village schools were closed—more than one every two weeks. More than 100 rural post offices closed each year and, while the previous Administration permitted an explosion of out-of-town superstores, more than 4,000 village shops went out of business.
The countryside is no stranger to change, and our task is to give people the tools to respond to that challenge. This White Paper represents a new and genuine commitment to the rural communities and gives them the powers and resources to manage change. It represents a more comprehensive approach to the needs of the countryside. Increasingly, rural areas will benefit from our main programmes on health, education, housing and employment.
In addition, we have doubled specific rural spending, from £600 million in 1997-98 to —1.2 billion this year, and we are committing an extra —1 billion to farming and rural programmes over the next three years.
There are five main elements to our White Paper. It is about improving services, tackling poverty, aiding the rural economy, protecting the countryside and wildlife, and giving more choice to local people. Access to basic services is what people in rural areas really want, and that is the most important element of the White Paper.
People in rural areas should know what services they are entitled to. So, for the first time, we are to publish a rural service standard. It will set out minimum service standards and targets for the full range of public services from education to health, and child care to emergency services. To improve health care in rural areas, we are providing £100 million for one-stop primary health care centres or mobile units in 100 rural communities.
To reverse the decline of rural post offices, we are investing —270 million to turn post offices into one-stop shops, with access to banking, prescriptions and local

authority and other services. Today I can announce that the pilot scheme to test the system will be in Leicestershire, involving 280 post offices and starting next spring.
Thousands of villages have lost their local shops. We propose to offer mandatory rate relief to more village shops, pubs and garages. We are launching a new £15 million rural community service fund to support local enterprise and help local groups re-establish their lost services. To improve education in rural areas, we have introduced stronger safeguards to protect rural schools from closure. We are providing rural police forces with an extra £45 million over the next two years. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced, we are helping local communities which use their local church to provide community services, by reducing the rate of VAT on repairs and maintenance from 17.5 per cent. to 5 per cent.
The House will be aware of the importance of transport to rural areas. In his pre-Budget report, the Chancellor froze fuel duty and reduced vehicle excise duty on smaller cars. But public transport is absolutely vital. We have already increased funding for rural buses by £170 million, providing 1,800 new services. We are now going to invest another £192 million over the next three years in rural transport.
People in rural areas have told us that, in some places, they need much more flexible transport solutions, so we are setting up a new £15 million special transport fund. The fund will give those parishes that want it up to £10,000 each to provide their own small-scale solutions to local transport problems, such as support for car clubs, taxi services and community transport. As announced in our 10-year plan, we will extend the existing fuel duty rebate for buses to community transport schemes. For a typical community minibus that could be worth up to £3,000 a year.
There is growing concern about controlling speeding traffic in villages and on country roads. We will allow local communities to make villages and rural roads safer by reducing speed limits and investing more in traffic calming. We will also invest more than £1 billion over 10 years in rural bypasses.
Like urban areas, rural areas require affordable housing. We are doubling the Housing Corporation programme by 2003-04. This, together with local authority investment and planning reforms, will provide a total of 3,000 affordable homes a year in small rural settlements, and a total of around 9,000 homes a year across all rural districts. In some areas, better use of planning rules could provide one affordable home for every new home built. Our new starter home initiative will also help key workers on modest incomes to buy their homes in areas of high prices and high demand.
There are strong feelings of resentment in some areas that second home owners benefit from a 50 per cent. council tax discount while local people cannot find enough affordable housing. We propose to give local authorities in England the same discretion as those in Wales to end the 50 per cent. discount. As a new departure, we propose to use the proceeds for extra affordable housing. This will of course be discretionary, but it could be worth up to £150 million a year. We are required to consult on that proposal and will do so as soon as possible.
A strong rural economy benefits both rural and urban areas. Market towns are the heart of economic growth in rural areas. We are investing an extra £37 million over


the next three years to help create new opportunities, new work spaces, restored high streets, better amenities and good transport links to surrounding areas. With partnership funds, that will create a £100 million package for 100 market towns.
We are giving the regional development agencies greater flexibility and a more specific rural remit within the additional £500 million in their budgets. There will also be special business support and training tailored for small businesses in rural areas.
The House has often expressed the view that agriculture plays a crucial role in the countryside and rural economy. The action plan for farming sets out our policies for the future of farming. Farming will continue to produce the bulk of the nation's food and contribute to exports. It also contributes to a good quality environment and the wider local economy, but many farmers want, and indeed need, to diversify to stay in business.
The House will recall that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, recently announced a £1.6 billion seven-year package for agriculture in the new England rural development programme. This will increase environmental support for farmers and help them to start new business enterprises. The Government are also making available an extra £500 million to help the farming industry modernise and restructure in addition to the £2.5 billion a year from the European Union.
Recognising the real difficulties faced by agriculture, we will also reform our planning rules to help farmers diversify. We are today launching a consultation document to give rate relief for rural diversification projects.
Our consultation has shown a great deal of concern for a small but important part of the rural economy—the maintenance of small rural abattoirs, which have faced increased inspection fees. We will introduce additional targeted help to support local abattoirs, without any detriment to food standards.
Our beautiful countryside is valued both by people who live in it and by people who visit it. We all recognise the work that rural people have done over generations to protect the countryside and keep it in its present state. We must relieve the pressure of development on the countryside, so we will be building on urban brown fields first and on green fields last. We will build higher quality housing and make better use of land by building at more sustainable densities. Therefore, we now require local authorities to notify me of all major housing developments planned for greenfield sites.
The House will be aware that we were reviewing our controls over roadside advertising in the countryside. I can announce that we will not change our rules but will maintain our controls over advertisements in the countryside.
Following this statement, the House will move on to the final stages of the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill. This major Bill will give additional protection to our countryside, conserve its wildlife and make it accessible to all—something for which we have waited a long time.
Our consultation showed that for too long local people have felt they have not been able to take decisions for themselves, especially in rural areas. We want local communities to play a bigger part in shaping their own future because every community has its own priorities, strengths and distinctiveness.
The performance of our parish councils varies. We will promote new "quality" town or parish councils which will be able to take on a bigger role in providing and managing local services in partnership with principal authorities.
We will provide £7 million to help parish and town councils to meet the quality standard and shape their future and, for the first time, to help 1,000 communities develop town and village plans which can then feed into the statutory planning process. In addition, the Countryside Agency will equip every town and parish council with access to the internet.
Town and village plans will allow local people to set design standards and preserve the character of their villages.
As our consultation revealed, all too often in the past and at all levels of government, rural needs and priorities have been overlooked. We will ensure that the commitments in this White Paper are followed through. To achieve that, an audit will be developed. The Countryside Agency will produce an annual report on how major policies have been assessed for their rural impact. We will establish new rural advisory boards at national and regional level, and will appoint a new rural advocate—Mr. Ewen Cameron, the chairman of the Countryside Agency—who will argue the case on countryside issues at the highest levels in government and outside.
We are clear that it is impossible to tackle the problems of the countryside in isolation. We need to look at them as a whole across government. The White Paper promotes a living countryside, with thriving rural communities and access to high quality services; a working countryside with a strong economy giving high and stable levels of employment; a protected countryside that we can all enjoy; and a vibrant countryside that can shape its own future and have its voice heard by government at all levels.
Some people want to divide town and country. We are governing for the whole country. Our aim is a living, working countryside, with better access, for all people to enjoy.
I commend the White Paper to the House.

Mr. Archie Norman: I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his statement. The White Paper has been long awaited and much delayed. The right hon. Gentleman said that he did not want to divide town and country. It is a pity, therefore, that he was unable to deliver on his promise to issue the urban and rural White Papers simultaneously, so that we could see how they related to each other.
None the less, we are glad that the rural White Paper is finally here. There is no doubt that, when Conservative Members have studied it, we will welcome some of its proposals—not least tranquillity measures and access to emergency services, about which we have read in the newspapers, and, as we have heard today, help for small abattoirs. All those measures will be welcome.
However, may I remind the House of the state of rural life under this Government, to which the Deputy Prime Minister referred? We face an unprecedented crisis in farming. It is probable that, during the life of this Government, some 50,000 farmers will lose their livelihoods for good. The suicide rate among farmers is
the highest on record, and there is a rapid and increasing loss of green fields to development under this Government—[Interruption.] Yes. Crime is rising in the countryside faster than anywhere else, rural pubs are closing at a rate of six a week and post offices at a rate of two a week, and the stealth tax burden is falling most heavily on the shire counties. There has been a 34 per cent. increase in fuel duty and, as we heard yesterday, council tax in the shire counties is likely to rise by 30 per cent. during the life of this Government.
The test of the White Paper will be whether it addresses the guts of that a crisis. What, if anything, in the White Paper will result in a single farmer staying in business as a farmer? Will anything lead to a single housing estate not being built, or to a single crime being prevented?
The White Paper relaxes planning restrictions in a number of areas, but does it do anything to reverse the accelerating loss of green fields to development—the vicious circle of the decline of the inner cities and the concreting of the countryside? Does the Deputy Prime Minister recognise that his commitment to force councils in the south-east to build 900,000 new houses—50 per cent. on green fields—and those in the south-west to build 460,000 new houses, of which more than 60 per cent. will probably be built on green fields, will only perpetuate the loss of the countryside? Proposing in a White Paper to build over it is no solution. We need less interference and more local control over local planning. All the tranquillity measures in the world will be as nothing unless the right hon. Gentleman's central planning diktats on housebuilding are revised.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister realise how hopelessly superficial some of the measures in the White Paper, such as those on e-inclusion, are? Post offices are closing at rate of two a week. It was the Government's decision to withdraw cash services from post offices, putting them into crisis. Putting a computer terminal into a post office is a perfectly nice idea, but it is completely superficial and will make no substantive difference. Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the real issue for e-commerce in the countryside is the rolling out of broadband? Every forecast and everything that the Government have done suggests a permanently disadvantaged countryside—because of the Government's failure to deregulate telecoms in order to ensure that such rolling out takes place.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister clarify the position on rate relief? He said in the statement that the plan is to ensure that rate relief for village shops and post offices is made mandatory. However, the White Paper states:
We are consulting in our Green Paper Modernising Local Government Finance on an expansion of the village shop rate relief scheme.
I do not want the House to be confused about that issue. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will clarify whether he is consulting, or whether the scheme will be rolled out on a mandatory basis, and if so, when.
Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that most people living in the countryside depend not just on buses but on cars? We welcome investment in rural bus services, but does he not understand that less well-off farmers—whose incomes have, as he said, dropped by 65 per cent.—pensioners and parents taking their children to school in

remote areas rely on the car? They have borne the brunt of stealth taxes. A 3p cut in fuel duty would go much further than any proposal in the White Paper to boost the rural economy.
Is there anything in the White Paper that will prevent a further rise in rural crime? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware—he did not mention it in his statement—that there was a 6 per cent. increase in burglaries in the countryside in the last year alone, which was a reverse of the trend experienced under the Conservative Government; that there was a 23 per cent. increase in car crime; and that the driving force behind the increase in crime is the reduction in the strength of rural policing by 1,750 under this Government? People in the countryside now have to go to town to see what a policeman looks like. Is there anything in the White Paper that will prevent a similar rise in crime next year?
Is not the £40 million that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned money that had already been announced, representing no real-terms increase in the expenditure on police in the countryside? Is any of the £1 billion-worth of investment in the countryside that he has claimed genuinely new money? If any of it is money that has not been previously announced, what is it and how much does it amount to?
Does not the White Paper make the Government's attitude to farming clear? Of the 176 pages of the document, only 11 relate even remotely to agriculture. To sum it all up, on page 86, in response to the worst crisis in agriculture since the 1930s, the Deputy Prime Minister unveils—wait for it—the "electronic rural portal". That was not quite what the farmers had in mind.
Is not the real truth that the urban White Paper was the right hon. Gentleman's top priority? That was seen as something of a flop, and the rural White Paper is the afterthought. It lacks any vision; is fragmented; and is degraded by emphasis on glossy gimmicks. The right hon. Gentleman made his view of country people clear at the Labour party conference. He gave the impression today that he was talking about a foreign country. The fact that he does not understand the countryside may be understandable, but the fact that he does not care about the countryside is unforgivable.

Mr. Prescott: The more questions the hon. Gentleman asks, the less definitive becomes his approach. I shall respond to some of his questions—I think you would rule me out of order if I attempted to answer every one of them, Mr. Speaker.
May I deal first with the delay. We announced in 1998 that we would commit ourselves to a White Paper. We are within the timetable for that. I said that the document would possibly be published before the summer. A number of decisions, especially those announced in the Chancellor's pre-Budget statement, made it necessary to publish the White Paper after that statement, and we decided to do so today.
There has been some debate about whether the urban and rural White Papers should be published at the same time. Different views have been expressed, but I arrived at the view that we should separate them. People in rural areas and Labour Members representing rural constituencies said that if we put the two together it would look as if the urban view was overwhelming the rural view. I did not necessarily accept that view, but I could


see the difficulty. I accepted that it was better to make two statements, and I hope that the House welcomes that and that we can concentrate on rural matters today.
The hon. Gentleman referred to a catalogue of decline. After my statement, 1 thought that he might have held back. I have referred to the decline in the number of village schools, shops and transport services, which we are addressing in the White Paper. All of it took place during the Conservative Administration. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that a rural White Paper is necessary to deal with these matters, I have to tell him that it took the Conservatives 16 years to produce a rural White Paper, and 12 months later they produced a progress report that said that not much progress had been made. There was plenty of talk but no action, and no policy was implemented. Within three years, the Labour Government have produced White Papers on urban and rural affairs and implemented a series of proposals for change to meet the requirements. That is a far better response than one White Paper in 16 years under the previous Administration.
On the question whether farming is in decline, that has been pretty evident not only for the past two decades, but for longer than that. The population employed in agriculture has continued to decline. Although Tory Members now represent only a minority of rural areas, they must know from their experience, as do my colleagues, who represent the majority of the rural areas, that there has been considerable decline in the industry and many difficulties resulting from the changes in agriculture policy.
That is undoubtedly true, and it is why my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has produced a number of agriculture policies to deal with those difficulties. The most recent is the action programme to tackle the problems facing the industry in the past few months. Yes, the industry is in decline. At the request of the industry and rural communities for more favourable circumstances for diversification, we have produced our proposals and made extra resources available.
It is true that we have given greater priority to affordable housing. That is largely because many authorities were engaged in selling their housing stock as second houses—or executive homes, as the hon. Gentleman would call them. [Interruption.] Yes, whether we like it or not, the quaint country cottage has become the executive second home, and that has denied people who want to live in the area the chance to have a home.
Yes, we have increased the amount of money available for affordable housing. We have also increased the possibility of new resources by removing the 50 per cent. discount on council tax. That is a matter on which I must consult, but Wales has already introduced such a measure and shown that it can work. I want to make sure that the extra money taken by local authorities who withdraw that discount will be directed to providing affordable housing. That is a priority and it is one of the matters on which we differ from the Opposition.
On the question whether we are building on greenfield sites, we have carried out a review of PPG3 and PPG6, which deal with supermarkets—a subject on which the hon. Gentleman has much more experience than I do. Much of the greenfield area was developed for that purpose.
The same argument applies, whether the planning is for the south-east or the south-west. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I cannot comment on planning arrangements still to be brought before the House. In general, however, as we have made it clear time and again, priority should be given to brownfield sites for housebuilding. We also believe in greater density and better quality design. That, in our view, would meet the demand for housing in the south-east with no greater land take. It is simple mathematics to divide the land by the number of houses and determine the density required. Our proposals will not lead to a greater demand for land.
We have increased the green belt by 30,000 hectares in three years, whereas the previous Administration added only 1,500 hectares to the green belt. Again, that shows the difference between us. Our record on the green belt, development and planning agreements is far better.
On rural crime, the hon. Gentleman cites the statistics rather selectively. We all accept the British crime survey report; I have heard it quoted by the Opposition. Let us first remind ourselves that throughout the period of the Tory Government, crime doubled in rural and urban areas. It doubled. The hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest that it had subsequently got worse. The British crime survey report shows that between 1997 and 1999, burglaries went down 20 per cent, rural violence went down 22 per cent. and vehicle theft went down 20 per cent. That is not consistent with the suggestion that crime has got worse in rural areas.
The statistics deployed by the hon. Gentleman are typical. The greatest hypocrisy in his argument is not only that he asked what new money there is—clearly, there is new money, as I have told the House—but that he made no commitment to continue that extra public expenditure. We know that the Opposition would maintain the expenditure on health and possibly education, but they would not maintain other expenditure. Recently, the Opposition Treasury spokesman, the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway), said:
We have made it quite clear that we do not intend to match the Government on public spending.
The question for the Opposition is what they would cut from new expenditure in rural areas. That is the reality. We shall be posing that question in every rural area when we fight the next election.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I thank my right hon. Friend for his response to the Select Committee's report and for the White Paper. Will he say specifically when he hopes rural post offices, shops and garages will be eligible for rate relief? How soon does he expect money to be available to small market towns to enable their shopping facilities to be enhanced? Does he agree that if these measures are to work, it is essential that those who live in rural areas use their local shops? To that end, will my right hon. Friend look a little harder at the way in which supermarkets still insist on receiving discounts that are not available to small rural shops?

Mr. Prescott: I thank my hon. Friend for his supportive remarks. As regards rate relief, he will know that first we must complete the consultation process. Timing will be a matter for the Treasury. However, we have committed ourselves to the policy.
My hon. Friend referred to supermarkets and discount pricing disadvantaging shops selling higher-priced products in rural areas. I have been discussing with
supermarkets whether they should not consider having shops in rural areas that sell at the same prices, and allow a sort of social service to be provided. To be fair to supermarkets, they have begun to do so in some areas. I hope that we can encourage them to do more.

Mr. Don Foster: Liberal Democrats unequivocally welcome the broad thrust and many of the details of the White Paper. There has clearly been much parallel thinking between the parties. That is why we welcome plans to allow local authorities to charge full council tax on second homes and to abolish the outrageous privilege of a 50 per cent. discount. I urge the Deputy Prime Minister to speed up implementation of the policy. He need consult us no further on the matter. We entirely agree.
We welcome the plans for mandatory 50 per cent. rate relief for rural pubs, shops and garages, and the plans for renewing the Post Office network. We are delighted that the right hon. Gentleman has dropped plans to allow the mushrooming of advertising hoardings throughout the countryside. To ensure that there will not be the mushrooming of unnecessary mobile phone masts, is he now willing to accept in full the recommendations of the Stewart report to allow local councils to have full planning control?
Will the extension of the fuel duty rebate for all forms of community rural transport be introduced immediately? Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that implementation of the plans will not be delayed for further unnecessary consultation?
Having welcomed the bulk of the White Paper, I shall express one deep concern. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that many of his plans will be brought to fruition only with the support of active and willing local government that is given the necessary resources and the freedom to meet local needs? Will he explain why yesterday the Government further restricted that freedom by tying up yet more funds in specific grants, thus providing more central rather than local control?

Mr. Prescott: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support. I would not want the House to think that there is any joint consultation on these matters—certainly not with me! I welcome the hon. Gentleman's comments in support of the ending of the council tax discount and the granting of extra rate relief for shops. There was rate relief under the previous Administration, and we are building on that policy. That policy was right and other shops, areas and services are entitled to that relief. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman welcomes our decision on hoardings in the countryside. As he knows, we are consulting about mobile phone masts, although I think that much more could be done in the industry to unify signal stations rather than just duplicating them from place to place.
The time that it will take to implement the transport plans varies. I announced plans for £10,000 which, in some areas with only 1,000 people, is almost the size of a parish budget, so that is a substantial amount of money. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are more than 8,000 parishes and it is not assumed that they will all get that grant—indeed, from what they have told us, not all of them would want it. Certainly, we are prepared to give

that grant, but parishes will have to make a case for why they should receive it. As public money is involved, we will want to check properly that their schemes are sound, which, perhaps, will cause some delay.
I understand the controversial matter raised by the hon. Gentleman because I have had discussions with local authorities, who often make a point about ring-fencing of what were—and still are—local authority resources. However, there were real difficulties when we tried to identify those resources, whether for education or services. When the Government commit themselves to delivery in partnership with a local authority, they have to get the best balance between their responsibility and that of the local authority providing the resources.

Mr. Andrew Reed: I welcome the statement. As a Member of Parliament who represents a semi-rural constituency, I have consulted 8,000 of my constituents on these issues in the past year. I assure my right hon. Friend that the vast majority of those people wish to see health, education and transport—which are all included in the White Paper—being tackled. Hon. Members who try to divide the countryside and rural areas from urban areas do a great disservice to the whole country.
Will my right hon. Friend give further details about the proposed pilot scheme for post offices in Leicestershire? Will he look at speed limits in smaller villages so that they can be reduced as much as possible? Finally, will he look in more detail at ways in which we can assist market towns such as Loughborough and others in my constituency and the rest of Leicestershire, including Shepshed and Sileby, that have suffered from the decline in textiles? [HON. MEMBERS: "Come on."] Will my right hon. Friend look at extending help to those relatively large villages? [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has had a good try, but I suggest that from now on we have one question per Member.

Mr. Prescott: I am glad that my hon. Friend referred to the consultation, which was pretty extensive and cost 12 months of the time that we took to prepare the White Paper. We thought that it was important to find out what people in rural areas felt and, perhaps, to embody their recommendations, views and ideas about policy in the White Paper, which confirms what my hon. Friend said about consultation in his area. I shall write to my hon. Friend and other hon. Members who represent constituencies in Leicestershire with details of the post office scheme.
Recommendations have been made on speed restrictions, and we shall seek to give local authorities an opportunity to discuss them with the police and the authorities involved to see if speed limit changes can be achieved without the need to go through my Department to confirm a change. That will speed up the process and will be welcome.
Market towns are an important economic consideration for the development of rural areas. We want to make sure that they get support, even though they may not all want to do what we propose in the White Paper. We have given them an opportunity: they have a choice. The urban and rural White Papers are complementary. The more we can


help to improve life in our cities, the more we increase the possibility of people wanting to stay there instead of moving out of the area. The urban and rural White Papers both aim to achieve that end, on which the development of market towns and villages depends.

Sir Richard Body: Does the Secretary of State accept that many of us in the countryside, especially those of us who are concerned with farming, would really like form filling, regulatory control and other bureaucracy to be reduced to the level now prevailing in France and other EU countries with which we have to compete?

Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman has a long history of dealing with countryside matters and brings an experienced viewpoint to the House. He will know that we have changed some regulations dealing with environmental requirements in the countryside. However, the common agricultural policy, whether in France or Britain, carries a burden of bureaucracy and red tape. We are required to observe those arrangements. Of course, they were introduced under the previous Administration.

Mr. Peter Bradley: Will my right hon. Friend take it from me that the White Paper will be welcomed the length and breadth of this country? That will happen not least because it addresses the agenda of ordinary men and women with ordinary concerns and priorities in rural communities. The White Paper is not limited only to farmers, as one might have imagined after listening to Opposition Members. It is a rural White Paper, not an agriculture White Paper.
Will my right hon. Friend also accept that people will be delighted that affordable housing and jobs are at the centre of the programme? They are the best, indeed the only way of sustaining rural communities. Will my right hon. Friend endeavour to ensure that local authorities understand that we need a more flexible planning regime? That is necessary to secure affordable housing, as well as the jobs and local services that go with it, and provide the promise of the White Paper.

Mr. Prescott: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. The White Paper meets the needs of ordinary people in rural areas, men—and women—[Laughter.]—in York and outside it. My hon. Friend will know that many policies that affect rural areas are implemented by different Departments, so it is important to achieve proper co-ordination. That is why we sought to appoint a rural advocate to impose a check and to see how Departments are delivering what the Government promise in the White Paper, as well how they are delivering their policies. Ordinary people can express their views using that sounding board, and so ensure that Departments carry out their responsibilities.
On flexible planning, we are, as I said, making changes in the planning process to make it easier to deal with the problems of diversification. Members of rural communities, including farmers, are asking for action on that.

Mr. David Curry: Will the Deputy Prime Minister remember the hidden countryside industry—residential and nursing care for elderly people? Does he realise that residential and care homes are the

largest employer in many small towns and villages? Many farmers can hang on in business only because members of their families have found employment in such homes. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that that industry is under pressure because of inadequate fee income from local authorities and changes in standards? When the right hon. Gentleman deals with local authority finance, which also causes problems, will he bear in mind the importance of those homes, not merely in terms of care for elderly people, but as part of the interdependence of the entire rural economy?

Mr. Prescott: The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. When I consider rural areas, I am sometimes reminded of the city of Hull, which was often said to be a fishing town when only 6 per cent. of its economic activity was associated with fishing. The same can be said of agriculture in rural economies. The care industry is an important part of the diversification that is currently well under way in the farming industry, whether people gain employment in that sector or make a living driving trucks around—as we have seen in the past few weeks.
Diversification is important in the farming community—and I suspect that it always has been. We are seeking to remove some of the obstacles, to ensure the provision of services that give people jobs. That includes the introduction of extra resources and changes in planning regulations to allow more effective use of buildings than is currently possible.

Charlotte Atkins: I especially welcome the Government's investment in rural transport, as a quarter of households in rural areas do not have regular access to a car. However, I am anxious about rural school transport, which would be threatened under Tory plans to abolish LEAs. Does my right hon. Friend share my concern about charging post-16-year-olds for use of the free bus service? That acts as a tax on learning and staying on at school, and conflicts with the Government's view that we should reduce congestion in the areas around schools.

Mr. Prescott: I agree a great deal with my hon. Friend's comments. It is true that transport is a critical requirement in those communities. As she said, about a quarter of the people in rural areas, and 30 per cent. in the United Kingdom generally, do not have access to cars. Public transport is critical for them. My hon. Friend also mentioned access to school transport. In rural areas, demands for transport are much more variable than in urban areas. That is why we increased the funding for the provision of rural bus transport, which was originally £170 million. Everybody thinks that that has been quite successful, in producing 1,800 new bus services, plus other services.
We are trying to provide extra resources: the £230 million plus. I do not know whether the Opposition are prepared to retain that—it is new money to provide more transport services in rural areas. The special transport fund is also relevant as it will allow parishes and smaller communities to adjust to the relevant requirements. I hope that the extra resources will not be the total amount available. Often, extra resources can be used to multiply other resources to get better transport and


to meet the particular requirements of an area. They can also help to ensure that decisions are made by those most affected by them.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Although accessibility to vital services, a reduction in the cost of fuel, the increased availability of affordable housing and an increase in rural policing are essential to the success of rural communities, does the Deputy Prime Minister accept that unless farming is making a profit, there will be no maintenance of our countryside, to which he referred in such glowing terms? Will he co-operate more fully with other Departments and ensure that they introduce policies that will enable our farmers to make a profit? Does not the fact that Heathcote's, a rural abattoir in my constituency, will face an additional bill of £80,000 in the immediate future demonstrate what the Government are doing? Is that the way to ensure the survival of rural abattoirs?

Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman's opening remarks have already made my case. He catalogued the areas that are important for maintaining strong and good community life£and there was a decline in every one of those categories during the 18 years when he was a member of the previous Government. He obviously accepts his responsibility for the reduction in quality of life.

Mr. Winterton: I was a Back Bencher.

Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman may have been a Back Bencher during that period—I know that he was quite independent on occasion—but he belonged to that Administration and fought under a Tory banner at elections.
The hon. Gentleman rightly referred to the importance of fanning. It may account for a small part of our GDP, but a great deal of the life in those communities is dependent on farming. The new plans and resources that have been announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food are directed towards that. The hon. Gentleman must accept that the resources that go from the public purse to farming mean that one cannot argue that the industry is getting a hard deal. It may not be getting enough resources, but if one compares its situation with that of other industries, one sees that a fair share of public resources go towards maintaining agriculture in this country.

Mr. David Drew: Will my right hon. Friend accept warm congratulations from Labour Members, and also the fact that the comments of the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman), the Opposition spokesperson, had nothing to do with what really matters in rural Britain? Will my right hon. Friend also put to rest the canard that we were going to get rid of parish and town councils? Instead, we have shown that we will enhance their powers and give local people a true voice. There will be a proper decision-making process for planning and housing, which is what local people want. [HON. MEMBERS: "Question?"] Will he accept our congratulations?

Mr. Prescott: I agree with my hon. Friend. He is a supporter of rural communities and his comments explain

why the Government have more Members of Parliament representing rural constituencies than do the two main opposition parties—

Dr. Julian Lewis: Not for long.

Mr. Prescott: —a fact that shows what people in rural areas thought about 18 years of a Tory Administration. We want to reverse that decline and give people a decent opportunity to enjoy good services.
The White Paper will give people a choice, and a chance to make their own decisions. One way to do that is through parish councils. My hon. Friend knows, as I do, that the quality of parish councils varies considerably. There are more than 8,000 of them, and I propose in the White Paper to provide more powers and resources for som—but they must come up to a quality standard. They cannot just hope to receive the money.
We want to see a professional management in control—a management that approaches the provision of services in a professional way. We also want councils to be accountable through elections; councils in many areas do not seek endorsement by that means. We want better councils, and as we say in the White Paper, accountability is at the heart of that.

Mr. Paul Keetch: Much of what the Deputy Prime Minister has said will be welcomed in Herefordshire, but may I raise the subject of real food, which is now a growing aspect of rural life? What is in the White Paper to support farmers markets, which are an increasing and important part of rural life? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider again the compensation that should be offered to organic farmers who lose soil accreditation status because their crops have been affected by genetically modified pollen?

Mr. Prescott: I think that I have been advised that no one has been affected in that way.
It is important for us to try to improve rural economies by helping to strengthen agriculture. I have already mentioned some of the resources involved. I have referred to the need to help abattoirs—a point that may seem small in itself, but is really very important. People living in rural communities argue strongly that it is too costly to use abattoirs that are some distance away, and that it would be helpful if we could maintain local abattoirs and enable them to meet both the desired standards and the extra costs. Abattoirs are an essential ingredient in local economies.
The same is true of what the hon. Gentleman described as "real foods". I assume that he meant organic foods. More needs to be done, and we are doing some of it now. Organic food commands a higher price, which is of interest to local economies. We are doing all that we can to encourage it.

Jane Griffiths: The inclusion in my right hon. Friend's statement of support for parish and town councils will be warmly welcomed. Can he assure me that that support will assist Woodley town council in my constituency, so that it can maintain the area, which is not urban but nestles against an urban area, as both an inclusive and a distinctive community?

Mr. Prescott: I am not too sure how to reply to that question, as I only picked up half of it. I apologise to my


hon. Friend for that, and I will write to her. I assume that she was talking about a town council in the Reading area—I picked that up through natural intelligence.

Mr. John Gummer: If the right hon. Gentleman wants local people to be able to make bigger decisions about their own future, why, in giving local authorities discretion to charge the full rate on second homes, does he not permit them to use the money as they think fit? Instead, he insists that he must get his hands on it. Is that not merely another stealth tax? The Government make the local authority take the lash, then take the money back so that they can pay for their own housing policy.

Mr. Prescott: This is about housing policy. The proposal is in the interests of every local authority that I can think of.
At least I give the right hon. Gentleman credit for deciding that there should be a rural White Paper when he became Secretary of State for the Environment in, I believe, 1995. As he knows, however, his observation document showed that little had been done. Recommendations had been made, but had then been rejected. We have embodied some of his proposals in the White Paper.
I think that the money is an extra resource that should go towards affordable homes. I understand the right hon. Gentleman's essential point that local authorities should make their own decisions about resources, but as we are removing a discount, I feel that the money is required because of the desperate need for affordable homes—especially in view of the Conservative Government's record.

Dr. George Turner: My right hon. Friend will know that, with 67 parishes, mine is a truly rural constituency. I can tell him from my surveys of parish councils that 70 per cent. of them will welcome the proposals in the White Paper, and the continuing attention paid to the many deprived rural areas that developed during the 18 years of Conservative government.
I especially welcome the proposal to evaluate progress on the rural agenda, which I am sure will be welcomed throughout the House. Has my right hon. Friend considered the establishment of an annual report on rural issues, which could be debated annually in the House?

Mr. Prescott: I do not know whether I should congratulate my hon. Friend on having 67 parishes in his constituency or commiserate with him, but that statistic shows the diversity of the parish council structure. I hope that our proposals will help parish councils to provide a better service by giving them the resources and powers to meet the needs of people in their areas, as I am sure my hon. Friend will explain to them.
My hon. Friend raises the important issue of whether there should be an annual report. Governments—I do not have one particular Government in mind—often make statements advocating that something be done for rural or urban areas. All too often that commitment is not checked, except from time to time by Select Committees, as was said earlier. We intend to produce an annual report on the state of the countryside, which will be available to

Departments, Select Committee and hon. Members, so we can have a proper debate in the House on the provision of the services that I have announced and make a proper assessment of their effectiveness.

Mr. Anthony Steen: I congratulate the Deputy Prime Minister on his statement. It contained many good ideas and I support a great many of the sentiments behind it—and when he said that my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) had given him those ideas, I understood why the White Paper was so good.
I have one question. Last July, the European Commission told the Government that grants could no longer be given to clear polluted brownfield sites. That drove a coach and horses through the Government's policy to build on brownfield sites first and greenfield sites second. Has the right hon. Gentleman solved that problem, because if he has not, the green fields of our countryside will be destroyed, whether he likes it or not, with the customary knock-on effects of light and noise pollution?

Mr. Prescott: rose

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before the Deputy Prime Minister replies, I should remind hon. Members that the shorter the questions, the better for everyone concerned.

Mr. Prescott: I do not want to leave the impression, nor, I think, would the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Central—[HON. MEMBERS: "Coastal."] Sorry, I meant the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer). I do not want to leave the impression that even 1 per cent. of the ideas that we are putting forward came from his White Paper. There were ideas in it, but he implemented only one of them. He did not manage to implement the rest, which I have here before me, even after his one-year observation report on his White Paper. Where the ideas make good sense, I have included them. For example, it is right to build on the rate discount for such places as shops and pubs—but perhaps it would be better not to recognise the actions of other politicians by congratulating them on their contributions, because it only leads to silly remarks such as that made by the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen).
The EC definition of state aid has concerned the House. It is a real problem. We have cleared much land of pollution by using such resources, especially through English Estates and English Partnerships, and we need to contest the EC's contention that those resources are state aid. We have allowed for that problem and made changes to deal with it while we continue to argue our case. We are not a lone voice in that argument.

Mr. Mark Todd: I commend in particular the initiative that my right hon. Friend announced for supporting innovation in parish and town councils. A number of parish councils in my area—perhaps in Melbourne and Barrow upon Trent—would welcome the opportunity to develop local plans and new solutions for services. Can he suggest a timetable for that?

Mr. Prescott: We would be happy to discuss that matter with town and parish councils as soon as possible. It is important to get on with it, and I am sure that many
of my hon. Friends will want to make that clear to parish councils. The ideas are innovative. I have always believed that parish councils have a role. They clearly do not have the major role of other local authorities, but they have a part to play and we have dismissed them for too long. An effective parish council could play an important part in democratic accountability, which the White Paper seeks to increase.

Sir Peter Emery: The Deputy Prime Minister and his boss are always saying that they listen to people, so why will he not listen to the local authorities and give district councils the right to decide the level of new housing in their districts, rather than its being dictated by the Ministries?

Mr. Prescott: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman attended the debates when the previous Government forced their housing requirements on Kent and other housing authorities.

Caroline Flint: As Doncaster council claims that it will take it 10 years to introduce 20 mph zones, will my right hon. Friend consider delegating responsibility for such traffic management schemes to parish and town councils, which represent people who are crying out for those zones now, not in 10 years' time?

Mr. Prescott: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Those are difficult matters. Certain rights are given under statutory powers to the various authorities involved. I have said that there is an opportunity now for us to decentralise some of those powers to the areas most affected by them. Speed limits may be suitable. It makes sense to give more responsibility to those who are directly affected in the immediate area.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I too welcome the interesting and worthwhile proposals in the White Paper, but does the Secretary of State recall that the main problem in my rural constituency is that the borough council is being required by a four-year-old structure plan to provide land for 14,400 new dwellings over the next 10 years, in a rural setting? Many thousands of commuters will move into new homes, yet the road developments have all been cancelled and the improvement schemes have been postponed. Why does the right hon. Gentleman still refuse to call in those old structure plans and reopen them in the light of the many new policies that he has announced over the past three or four years, which he says are designed to preserve the quality of life and the green fields in our rural environment?

Mr. Prescott: I think that I can recall demands for that road being made for some time under the previous Administration, who found that they could not provide either the resources or the time to build it—so he is not bringing a new problem to my attention, although it may be made much more difficult by the 14,400 houses. I do not know enough of the details, but I understand that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had a meeting with some of my Ministers. Through PPG3—new planning guidance—we are trying to achieve a proper balance between such transport matters and housing development. I will look into the matter and write to him.

Mr. Huw Edwards: Will my right hon. Friend meet the excellent new Minister for rural affairs in Wales to ensure that the best principles of the White Paper will be applied in Wales, too? I represent a rural constituency, and does he agree with me that what people want is a quality environment and access to good quality public services, not the right to hunt animals with dogs for sport, which is the obsession of the Conservative party?

Mr. Prescott: I think that I will swerve past that one—but I believe that I have made it clear that I shall vote against.
We are on dangerous ground if we say what people in Scotland or Wales should do under the decentralised Administrations, but I have referred to the fact that we learned something from Wales when it ended the 50 per cent. discount. Both areas have much to learn from each other, and we should take that into account for the sake of improving the lives of people in all our areas.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: When determining the transport policies in the White Paper, did the Deputy Prime Minister declare his interest to his colleagues—a financial interest involving a transport union, which is worth perhaps £1,000 a month—as required by paragraph 110 of the ministerial code?

Mr. Prescott: Daft question.

Mr. Lawrie Quinn: Many people in Scarborough and Whitby will be pleased that the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food have listened to them, but I particularly welcome the new guidance on rural strategy that my right hon. Friend suggested would be issued to regional development agencies, including Yorkshire Forward. Can he say when that guidance will be available, so that I can ensure that I do my best for my rural constituents in dealing with Yorkshire Forward?

Mr. Prescott: I thank my hon. Friend for his support. To be honest, I do not know when the advice will be produced. If he will allow me, I shall write to him with more detailed information.

Mr. Edward Leigh: What new money has the right hon. Gentleman announced today?

Mr. Prescott: We have announced the £1 billion—the hon. Gentleman can read the statement. We have announced extra money for transport and housing, and extra programmes for housing, education and health. All of those things are important to rural communities, so the hon. Gentleman will have great difficulty explaining to his rural constituents why he would cut back expenditure on those programmes.

Mr. Michael Clapham: My right hon. Friend's White Paper will be welcome in my semi-rural constituency, especially the Penistone area. Will he say a little about the mechanism whereby market towns might gain access to the extra £37 million that RDAs have been given for regeneration? Is it likely to be available for projects proposed by the market towns?

Mr. Prescott: The RDAs have a remit to deal with and report on such matters, whether the areas involved are rural, partly rural or partly urban. In some cases the money will be made available by project; in others, other criteria will be used. The RDAs have been instructed to take account of rural areas in their programmes of expenditure.

Mr. Andrew George: It is wrong that this year, under the existing council tax loophole, £168 million of national taxpayers' money will again be spent subsidising wealthy people's ownership of second homes, when there are many thousands of rural families who do not have their first home. The right hon. Gentleman's announcement will therefore be warmly welcomed. However, my constituents in west Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, where there is a high incidence of second home ownership, will want to know how soon the policy can be implemented and whether the consultation process will consider other provisions to ensure that people on rural wages are not priced out by wealthy second home owners.

Mr. Prescott: As I made clear, we shall consult on the matter as soon as we can. I have announced other resources in connection with key housing and affordable housing. The 50 per cent. discount is not the sole issue, but under the scheme that I have announced, money will be ring-fenced for the development of affordable homes. That extra money will be welcome wherever in England it is applied.

Dr. Howard Stoate: One of the biggest problems in the rural parts of my constituency is the degradation of the environment caused by illegal fly tipping and encampments. Will my right hon. Friend say how his White Paper will enable the Government to clamp down on illegal fly tipping and improve the environment in rural areas?

Mr. Prescott: That is a particularly aggravating problem in many areas and it is difficult to deal with, as most hon. Members know. However, as my hon. Friend says, the practice is often illegal, so it is a question of catching offenders and enforcing the law; those are matters for the Home Office.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that the countryside would be more reassured by his statement if the Government were not actively working against the interests of British agriculture? [Laughter.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman must have a hearing.

Mr. Hogg: Why are the Government supporting the inclusion of sugar in the EBA—everything but arms—initiative? Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that that policy will destroy British agriculture, undermine employment and damage the countryside itself?

Mr. Prescott: I do not know about BEA—[Horn. MEMBERS: "EBA."]—but I wish the right hon. and learned Gentleman had shown as much concern about BSE, which affected more rural areas. He has more responsibility—

Mr. Hogg: You haven't a clue, have you?

Mr. Prescott: If he had shown greater knowledge and wisdom in respect of BSE, this country would be a lot better off, our agriculture industry would be a lot better off, and so would our people. It is a disgrace that he should make such an announcement.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in the past 18 years, one of the most dramatic changes in coalfield rural constituencies such as mine, which has 20 parishes and 20 villages, is that all the pits have been closed? My suggestion to him—I hope that he and the coalfields taskforce will take it on board—is that the accent must be on jobs, jobs and jobs again. And while he is at it, will he accept from me a couple of short sentences that he might want to use in the future? They are, "Ban French beef", and "Stuff the euro".

Mr. Prescott: I can tell my hon. Friend that those phrases are not in the White Paper. However, the point that he makes about jobs, jobs and jobs has been at the heart of the Government's policy—which has created a million extra jobs when the previous Administration told us that that was not possible. If this Government achieve nothing else, getting a million more people back to work is a record to be proud of. We have done that by recognising the need for social justice.
Coalfield communities suffered greatly from the previous Administration's policy of closing down 100 pits, which wiped out whole communities. We responded to that by providing £350 million and other resources and powers to coalfield areas, enabling them to begin rebuilding their own communities. The difference between this Government and the previous one is that we are concerned with social justice. We give a lot of time and attention to that.

Mr. John Hayes: The Deputy Prime Minister will understand the difference between sparsely populated areas and areas with scattered populations. He will also understand the difficulty of providing public services to those different types of communities. What proposals does he envisage will be necessary to ensure the efficient and effective delivery of public services in areas of scattered population, and where in the document does he deal with those proposals?

Mr. Prescott: A central plank of the White Paper is the need to ensure that local decisions are made by local people. In transport, for example, local people should be able to decide local priorities and how to use the extra resources provided for bus services. We shall also target other services such as health and education, and make it clear—as other Departments already do—that those services have to be provided. However, we do not rest there. We want to ensure that there is an audit of all those services, to be reported in an annual report to Departments, to the House and to Select Committees, so that we can check progress. That way of providing services is substantially different from the way in which the previous Administration did things.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have let the statement run for an hour and 10 minutes, and we must move on.

Dr. Julian Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Let me introduce the new Members first.

NEW MEMBERS TAKING THE OATH

The following Members took and subscribed the Oath:

John Robertson Esq., for Glasgow, Anniesland

Mark Phillip Hendrick Esq., for Preston

Adrian Edward Bailey Esq., for West Bromwich, West

Points of Order

Dr. Julian Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for not giving you advance notice of this point of order, but yesterday I received a telephone call from a journalist on a senior regional paper in my constituency, asking me, in some detail, whether the provisions in the White Paper on which we have just heard a statement would have any bearing on the extremely controversial proposal to build a huge container port at Dibden bay, a rural part of my constituency.
I wonder how that journalist knew in detail what the White Paper contained 24 hours before the statement was made, and whether this is one more case of the Government disregarding your injunction to Ministers not to leak to the press before statements are made in the House.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will have to provide some clear evidence that the journalist was in fact in possession of the White Paper before it was presented to the House. I will need more than hearsay evidence. I do not doubt what he says, but it is only hearsay evidence.

Mr. Robert Walter: rose—

Mr. John Bercow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will have to wait.

Mr. Walter: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I regret to have to return to a point that I raised with you about two weeks ago, when I sought your guidance on the correct way of referring in the House to the First Secretary and other Secretaries in the National Assembly for Wales. I asked whether we should use the titles in the legislation passed by this House or whether we could call them whatever we liked. You replied:
Normally, the Table Office would have corrected notices to use the First Secretary's correct title. I hope that the proper designation will appear on the Order Paper in future.—[Official Report, 15 November 2000; Vol. 356, c. 939.]
I may have been mistaken, but I took that to mean that official publications of the House would refer to those people only by their correct titles and that Hansard reporters would, as is their normal practice, correct inaccurate terminology used by hon. Members when referring to officials of the Welsh Assembly.
The right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) later asked a supplementary question about the First Secretary, but the Under-Secretary of State for Wales replied using the term "First Minister". Those who refer to the official record in later years may find that confusing. You wrote to the First Secretary, the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), on 21 November. The letter is in the public domain. It says:
The ruling I gave last week about the designation First Secretary related to the Order Paper, where it is proper that the terminology approved by Parliament should be used. I would not regard the oral use of First Minister as out of order.
I would be obliged if you could give a definitive ruling on the use of those terms in the House, both in the Chamber and in our official publications.

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman thinks that I did not make myself clear when I answered his point of order on 15 November. In order to remove any doubt, let me emphasise that my ruling referred only to the Order Paper. Hon. Members are free to use the term "First Minister" orally if they wish to do so, and I see no requirement for Hansard to make any correction in these circumstances.

Mr. Bercow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Given the importance of the need for this House to communicate accurately with outside audiences, was it in order this afternoon for the Government to distribute to several journalists copies not of the rural White Paper, but of the urban White Paper?

Mr. Speaker: Such matters are nothing to do with the Chair. The paper to which the hon. Gentleman refers was in the public domain.

Mr. Anthony Steen: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), Mr. Speaker. I shall be brief, and not take up the House's time, but this morning I received an e-mail from an august journalist who works for a highly regarded journal in my constituency. The e-mail contained a detailed list of questions about the rural White Paper. Would it be helpful to you, Mr. Speaker, if I let you see a copy of that e-mail?

Mr. Speaker: Yes.

Town and Country Planning (Amendment)

Mr. Tony Baldry: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend section 31 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 so as to allow local planning authorities to determine themselves in the structure plan the amount of new housing, including figures for housing provision in each district.
In his introduction to the urban White Paper, the Deputy Prime Minister stated:
Our guiding principle is that people must come first. Our policies, programmes and structures of governance are based on engaging local people in partnerships for change with strong local leadership. This inclusive approach is at the heart of our work
When he introduced the rural White Paper this afternoon, the right hon. Gentleman said that it was important for people to have a real say in what was happening locally. Clearly, it is a worthwhile principle, and one worthy of support, that local people and local leaders should make local decisions. The difficulty is that existing planning practice is the complete antithesis of any approach based on local people and local decisions.
Planning practice for new housing numbers is all top-down, with no local community say from the bottom up. Decisions are imposed from above, rather than taken locally. There is a confusing structure and a succession of regional planning conferences, county structure plans and local development plans. That confusion is compounded by the fact that those processes are often carried out simultaneously in relation to different survey periods, years, and time scales.
The result is that all too often, people suddenly wake up to discover a proposal to build huge amounts of new housing adjacent to where they live. When they object, the district council tells them, "We're terribly sorry. We know how you feel, but we have no choice. These housing numbers have been imposed on us by the structure plan. All we are doing is carrying out the structure plan's instructions."
It is hardly surprising that turnout in parliamentary elections and by-elections should be falling, and that participation in local elections is fading away, if local people feel disfranchised and alienated from some of the decisions that affect them most deeply. Not least among those decisions is how far and how fast their communities will grow.
My constituency contains two market towns, Banbury and Bicester, and a host of villages in surrounding Oxfordshire. Over the past 20 years or so, Banbury and Bicester have taken the lion's share of new housing development in Oxfordshire. In particular, Bicester has been for some time one of the fastest-growing communities in the country. Alas, local facilities do not always keep up with the increase in housing.
I suspect that the vast majority of people in Banbury and Bicester feel that the towns have grown to their natural geographical limits. Neighbouring villages feel that they are in danger of being caught up in ever increasing development that blurs town and village and destroys local distinctiveness. In Banbury High street and Bicester Sheep street I am not stopped by people saying that substantially more housing should be built in their
towns and villages. Rather, I am met with increasing numbers of people who feel disfranchised and powerless to prevent large developments that they do not want.
To planners and local government officials—those within the secret garden—the system of regional planning conferences, regional planning guidance, structure plans and local plans is entirely rational and understandable. But to those who matter—local people and local residents—it is not; it is an alienating system. Moreover, these matters are of increasing importance as the impact of development grows.
Increasingly, local authorities are expecting developers to meet infrastructure costs, such as the costs of new schools. In the new terminology of local government finance, Oxfordshire was "ceilinged" yesterday; there was a very tight local government settlement. Getting developers to build new schools is obviously attractive to local authorities, but to enable developers to do that, the new housing development must be substantial.
For example, it would appear that Cherwell district council is having to build 1,100 new houses on the outskirts of Banbury, most of which will be in the parish of Bodicote. It has taken Bodicote since the time of the Domesday book to grow to 1,000 or so homes; this development will double the size of that community almost overnight. How can that be called sustainable development? Other communities around Banbnry—Wroxton and Hanwell, for example—all made it clear that they did not want large volumes of extra new housing built on the edge of Banbury, adjoining their villages.
All this new housing, whether around Banbury or Bicester, will be built on greenfield sites. There is no question here of greenfield sites being last, as the Deputy Prime Minister said earlier. That statement is entirely meaningless. All the new building in Oxfordshire around Banbury and Bicester will be on greenfield sites.
What would my Bill do? I want to see more power devolved to local residents, with decisions moving closer to local people and further away from Whitehall and central Government offices. The decisions on how many houses should be built in a local area should be taken by local councils at the behest of local people and local electors. They should not be effectively imposed from above—top-down, a fait accompli. "More choice to local people" is what the Deputy Prime Minister said this afternoon. The real choice that local people want is the choice of the size of their own communities.
Regional planning bodies should be abolished. Many right hon. and hon. Members—particularly on this side of the House—believe that local councils are best placed to decide the appropriate level of new development in their areas. In his statement on the rural White Paper, the Deputy Prime Minister said that local communities should have a greater say in determining their futures. I listened carefully to his suggestion for how that would be carried out, and he said that there would be town and village plans. Great stuff, but what will those town and village plans do? Will they have an impact on housing numbers and the size of towns and villages? Absolutely not.
So far as the Government are concerned, all the plans will do is give local people the power to make comments on design standards. For the people in Banbury, Bicester and surrounding villages who are suddenly confronted by huge amounts of new housing developments to be told that they will be able to comment on design standards will hardly console them, or make them feel that they have a greater say.
Local people, must have a greater opportunity to contribute directly to the formulation of plans and planning discussions, and should receive information well in advance of planning applications. The time has come to restore a say to electors. The public should be allowed to contribute at committee meetings where planning applications are decided. Local objectors should be given time and space in the meetings to interact with applicants in properly organised sensible meetings in which local authorities and local people can reasonably express their concerns.
Town and parish councils should also be given a greater true role in planning decisions, not tokenism. It is true that local planning authorities have an obligation to take into account submissions from parish councils on planning applications, but parish councils are by no means always consulted during the formulation of development plans. So parish councils should be statutory consultees.
My overall proposals are very straightforward—a bottom-up approach to planning, the abolition of national and regional rigid planning diktats imposed for housebuilding, an end to regional planning guidance, scrutiny for planning gain agreements, greater participation in the decision-making process, proper warning for local residents about large-scale developments, a greater say for town and parish councils in planning decisions, a right of counter-appeal for local residents, greater scrutiny of local authorities giving themselves planning permission, and fairer compensation to local residents. That is what the Bill would seek to do.
I appreciate that introducing the Bill at the end of a parliamentary Session means that it has little prospect of making further progress. However, I hope that the House will give leave to introduce it as a signal that such matters will need to be addressed in the next Session of Parliament—and, indeed, in every Session, until local people are truly engaged and enfranchised in local planning and decisions about housing numbers.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Tony Baldry, Mr. Nick St. Aubyn, Mr. John Butterfill, Mr. Christopher Chope, Mr. Patrick Nicholls and Mr. Ian Taylor.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (AMENDMENT)

Mr. Tony Baldry accordingly presented a Bill to amend section 31 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 so as to allow local planning authorities to determine themselves in the structure plan the amount of new housing, including figures for housing provision in each district: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Wednesday 29 November, and to be printed [Bill 191].

Orders of the Day — Countryside and Rights of Ways Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): I must draw the House's attention to the fact that privilege is involved in Lords amendments Nos. 19, 33, 100, 124 and 268. If the House agrees to any of these amendments, I shall ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the Journal.

Clause 1

PRINCIPAL DEFINITIONS FOR PART I

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 13, after ("includes") insert
(", subject to the following definition,")

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Chris Mullin): I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 2 and amendment (a) thereto, and Lords amendments Nos. 3, 34, 38, 153 to 157 and 171.

Mr. Mullin: This group of amendments refines the concept of access land and exclusions from it. Before I go into them, let me say that almost all the amendments were tabled that we will be discussing today in response to proposals by one or other of the Opposition parties—whose attention I hope to attract in due course.
We have bent over backwards to meet the concerns of right hon. and hon. Members and their noble Friends to address the genuine concerns of landowners. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will celebrate the fact that they have helped to make what was already a good Bill even better. That was acknowledged by Opposition Members in the other place. Lord Glentoran, for example, said that the Bill
is developing into a first-class piece of legislation.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 November 2000; Vol. 619, c. 480.]
Baroness Byford, also on the Opposition Front Bench in the other place, said on Third Reading:
The Bill will now give access to millions of people—safe access, because that is what we have been after. It preserves our fauna, flora and wildlife. It improves rights of way. It has added … the areas of outstanding natural beauty. We welcome all that.
She concluded:
It has been my great privilege to have taken part in the shaping of a Bill that will give great pleasure to millions of people in the future.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 23 November 2000; Vol. 619, c. 1065-66.]
All the amendments made in the other place have improved the Bill—almost all in ways that Opposition Members have wanted. I hope that they will welcome them with open arms. I thought that I detected a trace of nit-picking yesterday in one or two Opposition arguments, but I am sure that we are past that stage now.
Lords amendments Nos. 1 and 2 will specifically provide that
mountain, moor, heath or down" does not include land which appears to the appropriate countryside body to consist of improved or semi-improved grassland.
The amendments will achieve two aims: they will put it beyond doubt that agricultural land other than unimproved and semi-improved grassland will not be treated as mountain, moor, heath and down; and they will enable such land to be excluded from maps of open country at the draft and provisional stages, so that both landowners and walkers can benefit from reasonable clarity as to what is open country.

Mr. David Kidney: When my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment set out on this legislative procedure, he estimated that the Bill would open up access to about 4 million acres of mountain, moor, heath, down and registered common land. Does the amendment make a significant difference to that estimate?

Mr. Mullin: I do not expect that the amendment will make a significant difference to the estimate. However, it will, as I said, provide some clarity, which is what walkers and landowners wanted.
Part I provides for a right of access to all common land registered as such under the Commons Registration Act 1965. Lords amendments Nos. 3 and 38 will ensure that access to common land would be preserved if it was de-registered after the Bill had been enacted. They will ensure that any land removed from the registers by virtue of an application made after the date of Royal Assent will continue to be treated as registered common land for the purposes of the statutory right of access. That will not affect access to common land that is removed from the registers as a consequence of powers of exchange or compulsory purchase.
Lords amendment No. 34 will enable regulations to be made to avoid possible undesirable consequences arising from access land being treated as a public place under other legislation. We do not envisage many circumstances needing to be addressed in this way, but the power is likely to be useful in certain cases.
We have also recognised the concerns expressed about the impact of the right of access on occupiers' obligations under section 162 of the Mines and Quarries Act 1954. The Act provides that certain mine shafts and quarries that are accessible to, and pose a danger to, the public are to be regarded as statutory nuisances for the purposes of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 unless they are fenced.
Issues of occupiers' liability will be addressed later, in the fourth group of amendments that we shall consider. However, Lords amendment No. 34 will enable regulations to be made that would provide that access under the new statutory right may be disregarded in determining whether a disused mine shaft or quarry is a statutory nuisance. Such regulations would, in effect, relieve the owner of any burden to fence it under the 1990 Act, when that might arise under the new statutory right.

Mr. John Bercow: I do not seek at this stage to cast aspersions on either the purpose or the likely effect of the regulations to which the Minister has just
referred, but it would be helpful if he explained whether they will be subject to the negative or the affirmative procedure.

Mr. Mullin: I believe that they will be subject to the affirmative procedure.

Mr. Kevin Hughes: It is the negative procedure.

Mr. Mullin: I am being advised that I am wrong, and that the regulations will be subject to the negative procedure. There has been a lot of debate on these matters.
Lords amendments Nos. 153, 154 and 156 except from the right of access any land within 20 m of a dwelling or a building used for housing livestock—that is just over 65 ft, to any Euro-sceptics. I do not think there are many present. Oh, yes, I see that there are. The amendments reflect the Government's response to genuine concerns about the impact of access on the privacy and security of people living on or adjacent to access land, and on the security of farm buildings. However, the exclusion of access from around farm buildings will not apply where the position of such buildings would effectively frustrate access.
Lords amendments Nos. 155 and 157 recognise the special needs of the racehorse training industry. We accept that there are real concerns about how best to reconcile the new right of access with the training of racehorses on land that qualifies as access land. We have listened to the racing industry and tabled the amendments to target action where it is needed. I believe that there is common ground between the Government and the racing industry that the exclusion of access from training gallops should not be more than is required to ensure the safety of employees, their horses and the public. The amendments therefore provide for land used for training racehorses to be excepted from access between sunrise and midday and at other times when the land is in use for that purpose.
Schedule 13 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 imposes an obligation on the Countryside Agency to make an annual report to the Secretary of State on the exercise of its functions arising under the National Parks and Access to Countryside Act 1949, the Countryside Act 1968 and the 1981 Act. Lords amendment No. 171 extends those obligations to require a report on the exercise of those functions under the Bill.

Mr. James Paice: I thank the Minister for the way in which he introduced the amendments and I place on record my appreciation of the courteous note that I received from the Minister for the Environment to explain his absence at the beginning of our proceedings.
I do not wish to repeat last night's debate, but the Opposition are concerned that the fractionally under five hours allowed for this large number of amendments is inadequate if we are to give them the attention that they deserve. The Minister rightly said that many of the amendments had been tabled in response to views expressed in Committee, but, as I shall show in a moment, the Government vigorously and robustly rejected many of those views, but did a U-turn when the Bill got to the other place.
We welcome the amendments. As hon. Members will have seen, we have tabled a few amendments to the Lords amendments and we will deal with them as we proceed. The purpose of our amendments is to clarify or refine the amendments made by their Lordships, which in general we welcome.
As the Minister rightly said, Lords amendments Nos. 1 and 2 exclude improved or semi-improved grassland from the definition of mountain, moor, heath and down. I think that the Minister used the phrase, "It will put beyond doubt" the fact that improved and semi-improved grassland is not included. In Committee, the Minister for the Environment said clearly:
the cultivated land exception is not intended to be the mechanism for excluding improved or semi-improved pastures and fields from a right of access. Such land will not qualify as open country and should not appear on the statutory maps … If cultivated land were given a broader definition, to include any improved grassland, for instance, that would result in a considerable uncertainty and confusion as to whether such an area was excepted land or open country.—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 6 April 2000; c. 167-68.]
There seems to be a gulf between the remarks made by the Minister for the Environment in Committee and the warmth with which the Under-Secretary introduced the amendments today. Their purpose, he said, was to clarify and put beyond doubt.
The Opposition welcome the decision clearly to exclude improved and semi-improved grassland. The issue was debated at length in Committee with reference not only to England but to Wales, although the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) is not with us this evening.
5.15 pm
Our amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 2 is intended to press the Minister. The amendment would replace the words
appears to the appropriate countryside body to consist
with the word "consists". The purpose of the amendment is to allow us to investigate with the Minister what is meant by "appears to" consist of improved or semi-improved grassland, particularly in the case of legal challenge. Not being a lawyer, I can approach the matter only as a layman. If the law states that it is sufficient for land to "appear to" or, conversely, not to "appear to" the relevant countryside body to be improved or semi-improved grassland, it is difficult to see how that could be challenged, whereas if that body ruled that the land consisted or did not consist of such grassland, that could be challenged.

Mr. David Maclean: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I am sorry to interrupt him, but I hope that he will draw attention to the fact that the definition in the amendment flies in the face of the other definitions in part I. "Mountain" is described as including
any land situated more than 600 metres above sea level.
Nowhere in the Bill is it described as land which appears to the Countryside Agency to be above 600 m. The Minister must explain why the "appearing to the Countryside Agency" definition applies to open grassland, when no other definition in clause 1 is similarly phrased.

Mr. Paice: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising that point, which demonstrates the validity of my


argument. In fairness, there are parts of the Bill in which the phrase "appears to" occurs. In the debate in the other place, the noble Lord Whitty supported the choice of phrase by saying:
We are talking about "improved or semi-improved" grassland, but there will be some semi-natural grassland which is essentially unimproved. It is grassland which, theoretically, might be able to produce a crop of hay but would not be included in this definition.—[Official Report. House of Lords, 23 November 2000; Vol. 619, c. 955.]
That is the justification that Lord Whitty gave—

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Paice: Let me finish the point, please. That was the justification given by Lord Whitty for the wording
appears to the appropriate countryside body.
As I said in my opening remarks, I shall not make a great deal of the matter. I am simply concerned about whether the definition will be contestable if the wording "appears to" is used.

Mr. Bennett: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that most people can tell whether grassland has been improved or not? That is what the Bill suggests. The danger with the old definition is that someone will say, "In the old records, the War Ag at some point insisted that a piece of inby land or ffrith were ploughed up." Sixty-odd years afterwards, it can be argued whether that still counts as improved pasture. The common-sense approach is that one can tell by looking where it has been improved or not.

Mr. Paice: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says and I do not dissent from the general view. We hope that many people will use the rights given by the Bill—many who are not entirely familiar with the differences. Those of us who have lived and worked in the countryside will be able to appreciate the distinction that the hon. Gentleman has made. My concern is whether the decision that the Countryside Agency will make in the mapping process will be contestable. If the matter rests on how matters appear to the agency, I question whether there can be a contest. I hope that the Minister will respond.
I accept entirely what the Minister said about Lords amendment No. 3. Lords amendment No. 34 relates to the reference to "public places" in existing enactments. The Minister referred to redundant or former mine workings. I must draw his attention to the concern expressed to me by the Country Landowners Association this morning. It comes under the heading of occupiers' liability, but it is appropriate to raise the matter now, given that the Minister refers specifically to the Mines and Quarries Act 1954. The CLA states:
It is important to be clear that while Government amendment No. 19— 
it is in the second group—
to clause 42 would provide for regulations to exclude liability for mines and quarries under the Mines and Quarries Act, it will not remove liability in respect of these features under the Occupiers Liability Act. If this latter liability is not removed, owners will still have to undertake risk assessments and to fence off mines and quarries on access land.
The CLA refers to the costs of compensation, for example, that would stem from that.
The Minister referred specifically to Lords amendment No. 34 as it relates to the Mines and Quarries Act. Perhaps he will explain more fully how he sees the relationship that I have outlined being established, and whether liability under the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 will remain.
Lords amendments Nos. 153 to 157 relate to schedule 1, which we debated at great length in Committee. Again, Ministers were not prepared to take time to consider our amendments and rejected the arguments advanced by myself, my hon. Friends and hon. Members representing other Opposition parties.
The first issue relates to curtilage. We tried to define its meaning in Committee, and the Government resisted intensely our every attempt to do so. The Minister for the Environment said:
I, too, have the advice of learned lawyers. They say that a recent judicial decision on curtilage was given in the Court of Appeal in February in the case of Skerritts of Nottingham Ltd. v. the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
The right hon. Gentleman concluded:
Curtilage therefore has a meaning that can be flexibly applied to the facts of each case. There is no reason to suppose that a statutory definition of curtilage will be any more helpful than the court's interpretation.
However, the Government have introduced a statutory definition, by including 20 m, or, as the Minister kindly told the House, 66 ft in imperial language. What has happened between 4 April—

Mr. Kevin Hughes: We listened to your argument.

Mr. Paice: That I would happily accept if I genuinely believed it, but I do not. I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman. [Interruption.] As the Government Whip is kindly saying from a sedentary position, I am a cynic in these matters. In Committee, Environment Ministers did not say, "That is a point worth thinking about", as they did in other cases. They did not say that they would think about it. Some of the amendments that we shall deal with later are definitely the result of further consideration by the Government. Instead, the Minister quoted legal justification for resisting our amendment. I am interested to know what has changed since then.
Other amendments to which the Minister referred relate to horse racing and training grounds. The House is familiar with my constituency interests. I represent a large proportion of the Newmarket training grounds as well as the racecourse. Again, my hon. Friends and I repeatedly advanced in Committee the risks associated with allowing the right of free access to training gallops. Ministers resented that and resisted as hard as they could. Unfortunately, the Minister for the Environment is not here to rebut his assertions, but perhaps that is why he has conveniently found something else to do at the beginning of our proceedings. However, in Committee he said:
Opposition Members seem to be unwilling to accept that access might be compatible with the training of horses. They should visit Epsom Downs, where the training gallops are situated on land to which a statutory right of access applies.
Despite the numerous examples that my hon. Friends and I adduced, the Minister went on to say:
Newmarket, however, has a vastly greater number.


That refers to the number of trainers in comparison with Epsom. The Minister continued:
That is why the same rules should not apply, irrespective of the size of the enterprise.—[Official Report, Standing Committee B. 4 April 2000;c. 143-521
Now, however, an amendment has been tabled that does precisely that and makes rules, irrespective of the size of the enterprise.
The Government are right and I do not understand why they did not accept our argument at the beginning. Why did they perform a volte face? Later groups of amendments will provide several examples of how the Government changed their mind, not because they went away and considered the issue but, perhaps, because it was expedient. I hope that the Under-Secretary and the Minister for the Environment will apologise to Committee members for all the time that was wasted while they resisted amendments only to roll over and accept them in the other place.
We support these sensible amendments and, with the exception of amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 2, to which I hope the Under-Secretary will respond, we shall not oppose them. At the risk of repetition, it beggars belief that so much time was wasted in Committee on amendments that were considered again in the other place before the Government were persuaded to accept them in the face of the power of their lordships' arguments. However, I welcome the amendments—with the exception that I mentioned—and look forward to the Minister's response.

Mr. David Heath: Coming to debate Lords amendments to a Bill of this nature and size, which took so long to consider in Committee, is almost like revisiting an old friend. In this case, the old friend appears to have changed since we last saw him or her, having undergone major cosmetic surgery that has been all to the good. In the Bill's long Committee stage and later stages in the House, we gave admonitions that it should to go away, smarten up and put on new clothes. It is as if all those admonitions had been taken to heart and, I am pleased to say, the Bill is much better as a result.
There may be several reasons for that, as the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) said. We made substantial arguments in Committee and during the Bill's later stages, but perhaps their effect was delayed and it took time for Ministers to see the good sense of our proposals. Perhaps we should accept the possibility that the greater skills of advocacy of Members of the other place were responsible. I should like to put on the record a tribute to Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer and my other noble Friends who did an admirable job on the Bill. I should also like to record my thanks to Ministers for listening to us. It would be otiose to list all our amendments that were accepted, but had they not been, the Bill would have remained deeply flawed. It is much less flawed now, and I wish it well. Some points of contention remain, but on the whole, it is a much better Bill.
5.30 pm
The group of amendments that we are currently considering includes a new definition of agricultural land,

and exemptions from the definition of open country. We pressed for that in Committee. I am not persuaded by amendment (a), which the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire tabled, because—contrary to the comments of the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean)—it would introduce a new anomaly.
It was suggested that there was no qualification of amendment No. 2, which includes the phrase,
appears to the appropriate countryside body.
However, the next definition of open country in the Bill uses exactly the same formulation. Removing those words from amendment No. 2 would differentiate between the two provisions. I am not sure whether that is helpful. Although I understand the spirit in which the amendment was tabled, I do not believe that amendment (a) would add to the clarity of the definition.
Amendments Nos. 153 to 157, which apply to the area immediately surrounding dwelling houses, and—following moves by my noble Friends and others in another place—extend the provisions to cover buildings in which animals are kept, are extremely welcome. They will do a great deal to allay the fears of those who are worried about night access. I stress that the original measure needed to provide for a right to challenge someone who acts suspiciously near a property or domestic animals. The amendments would allow that because the land that immediately surrounds the buildings will not constitute part of the land to which people have access. That is an important consideration, which is now incorporated in the Bill.
1 welcome amendments Nos. 155 and 157, which deal with racehorse gallops. Those sensible provisions should have been included in the original measure. The matter could have been tackled quickly in Committee; that would have been preferable to the protracted process that occurred. However, we got them in the end. Racehorse trainers in my constituency, as well as in that of the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire, will welcome the amendments because they improve safety and will allow them to carry on their business appropriately and safely.
We are considering a good group of amendments, which improves the Bill. The amendments were tabled largely at the suggestion of Liberal Democrat and Conservative Members. I hope that they will be incorporated in the Bill.

Mr. Maclean: The amendments constitute an improvement, as far as they go. Like my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), I have some anxieties about them. Of course, one welcomes an amendment that exempts "improved or semi-improved grassland". However, I am worried that such exemption will be at the discretion of the appropriate countryside body, which would be the Countryside Agency.
The Countryside Agency is skilled in many ways and has some expertise; it would have more expertise if the Government were less parsimonious with funding. It is currently suffering dire cuts. Perhaps proper funding would enable it to be the "appropriate countryside body" and to exercise perfect discretion in determining what


constitutes "improved or semi-improved grassland". However, the Minister could be laying himself open to legal challenges in future.

Mr. Mullin: The right hon. Gentleman may know that an extra —17 million has been announced for the Countryside Agency today. Some —10 million will be used for initiatives that were announced in the rural White Paper, which was published today. Additional resources include —2.2 million for rural transport and —3.5 million for areas of outstanding natural beauty and for preparations for the introduction of access to open country. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that, far from facing cuts, the Countryside Agency will benefit from a substantial increase in its budget.

Mr. Maclean: The Countryside Agency has been thrown a few sweeties and bawbees today, but they do not make up for the cuts that it has suffered during the past three years under this Government, especially since the previous bodies were amalgamated. The amalgamated agency did not have double the budget of the two agencies that it replaced. I shall not discuss the —2.5 million rural transport budget because I do not want to stray from the amendment. The new transport initiative of —15 million, which was announced today, involves about —300,000 per county, which should buy us a few scooters and mopeds in Cumbria, but that is all.
As for improved and semi-improved grassland, I suggest to the Minister that there will be many circumstances—I can think of hundreds in my constituency—in which it would be a matter of dispute whether grassland was improved, or semi-improved. The land around many hill farms is flat, or flatter, land—it may not be low-level land—and it is clearly improved or subject to cultivation. It may even be arable. At the tops of the mountains, one clearly reaches completely unimproved mountain land. However, there is a grey area, which in Cumbria is known as "inby" land.
The lower level of such inby land certainly looks like improved grassland. Anyone could see that bracken had been controlled and stones removed and one could guess from the difference in the grass quality that nitrogen had been put on it at some point during the past 30 years. However, it would probably not have been improved during the past few years, because farmers have had no money to make such an input. Higher up, however, inby land has not been improved, particularly during the past few years, because of the dire situation in farming. Grants would have been given in the 1950s and 1960s to deal with bracken, take the land in hand and improve it and to turn more of the mountainside into better quality grassland. However, if land is not touched for 20 or 30 years, bracken makes a quick comeback, as do brambles, whins—or gorse, as I should say in England—and birch trees.
To the uninitiated—to many people—inby land will resemble cleanish mountain land; it will certainly not resemble arable fields or the grass fields that many people expect to see in the countryside. The question is whether such land is improved or semi-improved grassland. Unless the Countryside Agency allows experts from the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service or other qualified organisations and farm advisory services to say, "Yes, that is improved or semi-improved grassland," and allows a nitrogen reading or a soil sample to be taken, how will it determine the matter?
The appropriate countryside agency will have to determine whether land is improved or semi-improved grassland, and I would be content to leave it to make that judgment if the Minister guaranteed that, even if the agency were minded to say, "No, it ain't," representations would be heard or evidence taken that, at some point in the past 30 years nitrogen had been put on the land in question, the brambles and bracken had been cut or other measures had been taken to improve it.

Mr. John M. Taylor: In my part of England, where we refer to gorse rather than whins, although I like the latter word, there has been an increasing tendency for grassland—or, for that matter, shrubland or woodland—to be converted into golf courses. I have no great objection to that because golf is a game that I like, but the number of courses is increasing at an alarming pace. Does my right hon. Friend have a view on that, in terms of ecology, habitat and the use of the natural environment?

Mr. Maclean: I certainly have, and I could expatiate on it at length, but I shall not do so in the context of the amendment, except to say that schedule 1 deals with golf courses. In Cumbria, we have some golf courses that are quite high up the hillside and, because they are 1,800 ft above sea level, they might almost fall under the definition of "mountain".

Mr. Bercow: Courses or gorses?

Mr. Maclean: Courses, not gorses.
I want an assurance from the Minister that the Countryside Agency will not reach a judgment relating to improved or semi-improved grassland merely by looking at a map, or by looking at the land in question. Yes, in many cases it has been possible to tell what is a mountain and what is improved grassland; but that is not true of thousands of acres of inby land in Cumbria which are halfway up the fell sides, between the farm buildings and the fell tops.
An uninitiated person, or someone having a cursory glance, would say, "That is not improved or semi-improved grassland. Look at the gorse bushes; look at the trees; look at the bracken. That is wild mountainside". Nevertheless, 10, 15 or 20 years earlier, the farmers owning the inby land might have put considerable resources into making it improved or semi-improved grassland. We need to hear from the Minister whether evidence of that nature will be acceptable.
I do not want the Minister to say, "It is what the land looks like now that counts". I do not want to be told that it does not matter that five years ago farmers improved the land by cutting down all the bracken and gorse and spending a fortune on nitrogen, and that now, because nature has partly reclaimed the land, the agency will say, "Tough luck. It does not look like improved grassland to us, so it has not been exempted."

Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way, and it is rare for me to cavil at anything he says in the Chamber; but what he is describing, at least on the face of it, suggests to me that a great deal of labour-intensive activity will be required. Is he confident
that that activity will be feasible, even in the context of the largesse for the Countryside Agency about which the Minister boasted a few minutes ago?

Mr. Maclean: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention—and I would cavil with him. The largesse of which the Minister boasted would certainly not cover the cost of the additional civil servants who would need to be hired to draw up the maps required to implement the legislation, and to inspect all improved or semi—improved grassland that is the subject of dispute—and there may be hundreds of thousands of acres.
The difficulty that the amendment poses for the Minister and the Countryside Agency is that it would insert a clause dealing with some of the most contentious land. There can be little dispute about what constitutes a mountain: according to the definition, it is land situated more than 600 m above sea level—whatever that is in proper measures of height. That definition is clearly indisputable: it is possible, through the Ordnance Survey—and by means of certain navigation equipment that some Members may possess—to reach an exact determination of the height of any piece of land above sea level.
The amendment, however—although I welcome it in general—introduces an area of potentially great dispute. Many of my constituents will be willing to testify that they have improved their grassland over the years. They may not have improved it much over the past few years, because they are suffering: the Government have driven them into crisis in rural areas, and they have no money to make improvements. However, we need to ensure that all the work that they, and their fathers and forebears, did to improve the land will not be discounted because some hard-pressed official from the Countryside Agency, suffering under the grossly inadequate funding provided by the Government, has to give that land a cursory glance and then reach a decision that he might not have made had he been allowed to hear proper evidence and representations from farming organisations and properly qualified country and soil experts.
Under Lords amendments Nos. 153, 154 and 155, land more than about 66 ft away from a building will not be regarded as open access land. I think that that is about the length of the Chamber. You will be pleased to know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that if you lived in a little cottage or a house on a hillside in Cumbria, the world and his dog—or dogs—would be allowed to roam at a distance about the same as that from where you are sitting to the main entrance of the Chamber, but could get no closer. You are welcome to visit my constituency, and I hope that you will be reassured to know that on a dark winter's night in Cumbria people will be allowed to ramble at night on land but will not be able to get any closer to a building than the length of the Chamber.

Mr. John M. Taylor: This is when an Englishman might be able to help a Scotsman. A length of 66 ft is better known as 22 yd, which is also known as a chain. It is precisely the length of a cricket pitch. I say that as someone who played cricket for well over 20 years.

Mr. Maclean: It is always helpful to have experts. My hon. Friend is a lawyer and that was the first helpful

intervention I have had from him in 20 years in the House. Although it seemed to have been given for free, no doubt we shall get a bill in due course.

Mr. Edward Leigh: Is it not too hilly to play cricket in my right hon. Friend's constituency?

Mr. Maclean: I do not wish to go down that route, but we have champion cricket teams in Cumbria, and that includes my constituency. It is a pretty good team that can play cricket in the hillier areas. We do not play on the flat lands of Gainsborough.
I do not want to labour the point. Although it is good that an exemption is built into the Bill so that people who wander over someone else's land in the dead of night are prevented by the new access rules from coming close to someone's home, a distance of 66 ft, or one chain—the length of the Chamber or a cricket pitch—is inadequate. It will not reassure country people.
If I understand the Minister correctly, the exemption will not apply when a house is at the entrance or main access to the land. Open moorland is on the other side of stone walls and fences. If the main route or stile to it is beside someone's home, the 66 ft exemption will not apply. If the main access, or one of the most convenient routes of access, on to open land is 2 yd from someone's house—and may mean brushing up against its wall—the exemption will not apply and people will be allowed to get that close, which worries my constituents more than anything else.
The vast majority of my constituents who live in upland areas or on footpaths have no objection to people properly using footpaths or walking sensibly on open land or hillsides. They have no objection to people passing through their fields provided that they do not let dogs roam or leave rubbish that pollutes the area and harms their animals. My constituents' one objection is when people push right past their windows and kitchens or go through the middle of their farmyards to get on to land. That is not a rare occurrence. It happens in hundreds if not thousands of cases.
When the so-called definitive map was drawn up years ago, the footpaths on it were mostly private paths between one farm and another, between the farm and church and between the farm and the village hall. They formed a network of little paths between farm buildings, farm workers' buildings and rural communities—the school, church, pub and hall. All those private paths are now public footpaths on the definitive map. It is understandable that, in the vast majority of cases, the public are able to walk through someone's farmyard and past someone's front door when they are exercising their legitimate right to use a footpath.
We can do nothing about it now. That grave injustice was created 30 years ago. It is difficult to move a footpath out of someone's garden or backyard, or away from someone's kitchen window. When you come to Cumbria, Madam Deputy Speaker, I can take you to homes where the public footpath goes right past the kitchen, bathroom or bedroom window. With the Bill and the amendment, we are creating a new problem. We are saying that the public will not be allowed to roam all over someone's home or building and must be kept 66 ft away—unless the building happens to be situated where the public want access to land.
There is one other difficulty that always arises in my constituency in respect of access to land. If people who wished to climb mountains and hills—I try to do so a little occasionally—used the Pennine way, for example, and spread themselves out evenly over it, there would be little damage and few problems. If all the people who used the Pennine way entered it at fairly spread-out points along its route, there would be little difficulty.
The problem is that people honey-pot. They go to areas where there is a nice little village and a pub that is close to an access point to the Pennine way. The same occurs on our hills and mountains. There is a heavy traffic problem in the Lake district. It is not that the traffic is spread out everywhere: it concentrates on the small roads that give easy access to the mountains. Those idle people who wish to walk on hills, but who are not properly dressed and have no proper footwear, drive halfway up the hillside, park at someone's farm gate, in someone's yard, at the school or at the mountain rescue station and enter through the nearest convenient route. Those areas become honey pots.
Some buildings are probably situated at the convenient entrances to open land and moorland. Those are the places where people go at night to park their car and to stroll up the hillside, or they park elsewhere and enter the land, going right past someone's house. That is the difficulty with the amendment. That is why it does not go far enough. People are allowed to come too close to someone's house at night. The distance should be much more than 66 ft. Those homes should still have an exemption, even though the pathway that runs past them is an access point. They should not be penalised just because people want to walk through their garden or right past their house at two in the morning to climb a hill.

Mr. Bercow: Is my right hon. Friend suggesting, for this is what I construe from his last remark, that the restriction on people going past other people's windows should apply only at night? At least arguably, a good case could be made for a comparable restriction during the daytime, especially in so far as we are concerned about elderly people at home who could be fearful of what they regard as an unwarranted intrusion.

Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend is right. I would argue for the exemption and for the distance to be increased during the day as well as at night. I would argue, too, that pushing right past a home even if it is on the access route should be forbidden during the day as well as the evening. However, it is much more frightening for rural people during the evening or during hours of darkness. [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Whoever has that mobile phone should switch it off.

Mr. David Wilshire: My apologies.

Mr. Maclean: rose—

Mr. Leigh: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Maclean: I hope that my hon. Friend will have a chance to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I wish to conclude my remarks, if he does not mind. I have taken more interventions than I had intended.
I have made my points as forcefully as I can. They are serious. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure me.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I shall not go over the previous debates in Committee about inby land, ffridd, coed cae land and all the other esoteric definitions that we might come across. Suffice it to say that I give amendment No. 2 a guarded welcome because it is likely to include much land that is used for hay and silage making, an issue that many Opposition Members were concerned about in Committee. Unfortunately, however—in my view anyway—other areas of permanent grassland will not be covered under the definition. I seek an assurance from the Minister that all land used for hay, permanent grassland and silage will be outwith the new right of access. That is important.
In the interests of brevity, I say that amendments Nos. 153 to 155 are a step in the right direction. I believe that 66 ft is three chains, not one, but that is perhaps an esoteric point—

Mr. John M. Taylor: No, it is one.

Mr. Llwyd: I am corrected.

Mr. Taylor: Politely, I hope.

Mr. Llwyd: Indeed. I would expect nothing else from the hon. Gentleman.
Those amendments are a step in the right direction. Some of us on the Committee were concerned that, during the lambing season, for example, or during inclement weather, animals would need to be brought into the buildings near the farmstead, or perhaps even into the farmyard for a limited period. During the first discussions of the Bill, that situation was not exempted, so it was open to anyone to walk through and do as they wished, but at least there has been a move in the right direction.
Some of the fears expressed by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) about the countryside body may be without foundation. I say that to try to be helpful. The access forum—I have one local access forum in shadow form in my constituency—is extremely important. It is important that not only the farming unions but all interests are on the forum—individuals, too. If the quality of the discussion in the forum is adequate, that will inform the countryside body in due course. However, even if I am wrong, there is a right of appeal if the countryside body gets it wrong. The right hon. Gentleman is right—there is concern, but I am trying to offer some explanation that I have picked up during the passage of the Bill. I may be wrong. The Minister will no doubt give the definitive answer, but I give the amendments a guarded welcome.
I echo what the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said. During the passage of the Bill, time and again the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) and I raised those points. As both hon. Gentlemen have said, much time could have been saved had concessions been given in Committee. It was a rather pleasurable Committee all in all, but unfortunately, whenever a reasonable point was put, we were met with either a blank stare or the reply, "We will go away and think about it." [Interruption.] Well, possibly not a blank
stare. We were met with an animated stare from the Minister—it was not at all blank, to be fair, but often there was not much progress. That is the point. With that guarded welcome, I accept that the amendments are a step in the right direction, at least.

Mr. Leigh: I am a keen walker. I live in the countryside and there is nothing I enjoy more than walking. Country people are reasonable about these issues. They recognise that, increasingly in the modern world, many people who live in cities want access to the countryside, particularly the beautiful countryside represented by my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean)—the Lake district. Country people understand that, but there must be a sense of balance.
The point that has been made about the concentration of visitors in certain spots needs to be borne in mind. I understand the difficulties under which the Government are labouring. Rightly, from their point of view, they want to open up access, but I emphasise a point that is of particular concern to country people, who respect the rights of city dwellers to walk in the countryside.
A point has been made about people walking close to isolated houses or visiting the countryside during twilight, or perhaps even when it is getting dark. In the city, there is no difficulty: everybody closes their curtains and people are accustomed to street lights and to people walking up and down the pavement. However, the House must be aware that there is a far greater sense of isolation in the countryside. I live in Lincolnshire in a completely isolated spot, so I know that rural people—perhaps unreasonably—have a fear of people walking close to their houses.

6 pm

Mr. John M. Taylor: I know of a house that has a footpath running right through the garden: Chequers. I do not know whether the Government have taken that into account, or whether my hon. Friend and I might take a walk through the garden of Chequers next weekend.

Mr. Leigh: I suspect that if my hon. Friend were to take a walk at night through the garden of Chequers, he would find the long arm of the law clobbering him in rather severe fashion.
My point about the sense of isolation is a serious one. In addition, many who live in isolated rural cottages do not close their curtains. After all, why should they? They do not overlook anyone and no one overlooks them. Most of the ground floor windows of my home do not have curtains. At night, one cannot see out because there is complete blackness outside, but there is a not unreasonable concern, especially among elderly people, that the world outside may be looking in on them. The House must be sensitive to such feelings, although I do not know what the solution might be.

Mr. Bennett: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that that is part of the rationale for the access forum? Finding the right access points to land will require considerable

sensitivity. We want the forum to take all such matters into account and to propose access points that will not give rise to such problems.

Mr. Leigh: That is reasonable. I am sure that, with good will on all sides, it will be possible to achieve both access to the countryside and preservation of the sense of privacy of those who live in isolated cottages and farmhouses. Unfortunately, we all know from personal experience of the difficult positions that various countryside interests sometimes adopt, how difficult it is to re-route paths; doing so often becomes a long and complicated procedure. I do not know what the solution is.

Mr. Bercow: We know that the fear of crime is greater than the likelihood of it affecting us personally, but does my hon. Friend agree that the concern felt by people in the countryside at the prospect or the approach of unwarranted intruders is heightened by their knowledge that one of the side effects of the successful use of closed circuit television in town centres in the past few years has been that career criminals tend to seek new and better opportunities in outlying villages? Although we do not want to exaggerate the problem, that concern is justified and should be respected in public policy.

Mr. Leigh: That is a serious point. In discussions with rural Members of Parliament, local chief constables make the point that they have to put their resources where most crime takes place, which is in cities. Therefore, country people feel that local police are withdrawing from the countryside—which, in fact, they are. Such a feeling, coupled with access points, gives rise to concern.
I do not want to over-labour the point. I am a keen rambler and I want to have increased access to the countryside. However, if there is to be greater access and the distance from houses that people can walk is to be only 60 ft or so, I hope that there will be better procedures for re-routing paths. In areas such as the Lake district, there is plenty of room to do so. With good will on both sides, it should be possible both to ensure access to the countryside and to reassure country people. That is all I ask the Minister to try to achieve.

Mr. Mullin: I shall try to deal with the points raised in the debate. I do not want to get bogged down in who said what to whom in Committee. True, there are some issues on which the Government have changed their mind—we received an enormous numbers of representations—but there are others on which we are anxious to reassure those who are worried. In some cases, we believe that their fears are exaggerated, but we still want to reassure them, so we have erred on the side of caution.
The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) said that, in some cases, we have changed our mind. Well, in some cases, while the sentiments underlying the Opposition's proposals were reasonable, the amendments, they tabled were not helpful. Curtilage is one example of that. What we have done is quite different from what was discussed in Committee, but if we had done nothing, we would have been accused today of not listening, whereas in fact, we have taken into account people's concerns—indeed, we have bent over backwards to reassure them and to take account of the


interests of all the relevant parties. There has been some acknowledgement of that in the debate, but I should like to hear a little more from the official Opposition.

Mr. Paice: I assure the Minister that however late the sinner repenteth, we are pleased to hear of it, so the fact that the Government have changed their mind on several issues is important. However, on the issue of curtilage, in Committee—I have quoted the relevant passages—the Minister said that defining curtilage in any form would not be helpful, yet that is what the Government are now doing. It is not that our form of words was inappropriate; our entire approach was rejected by the Government—but they now concede it.

Mr. Mullin: With respect, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. Amendment No. 153 does not define curtilage, but provides a separate exclusion around certain buildings. We were convinced of the need for such an area, but that is quite different from curtilage. The curtilage may extend further than 20 m or not so far, but it will still be accepted.
The hon. Gentleman asked about mines and quarries. We must not dwell on the matter now, as we shall debate occupier's liability in due course, but it is correct to say that a minimum level of liability remains in respect of mines and quarries on access land, and we believe that it should remain. We shall address the matter further at the appropriate point.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, we received strong representations from the horse racing industry regarding horse training and gallops. Our amendment does not exclude people permanently from horse training areas, only from areas that are habitually used for training, and only in the morning and when the areas are in use. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands that.
The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) provided an example of the sort of filibuster that might have faced us had we not had the foresight to impose a guillotine. In an intervention, he asked why there was a clear definition of mountains, but not of improved or semi-improved grassland. The answer is simple: unlike some other categories of open country, mountain terrain can be simply defined. Such land is clearly shown in the Ordnance Survey map by reference to the 600 m contour.
As for the Countryside Agency, we believe that that is the right body to make the necessary decisions. It is an expert, neutral body. We are leaving it neither to walkers nor to landowners to decide what land falls into which category. The countryside body will examine any relevant evidence when deciding whether land constitutes open country and it will be for that body to draw up the relevant criteria.
I thought that the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) made his points very reasonably, and he touched on the fears of some people who live in isolated areas. Many of the amendments that we are making are an attempt to reassure those people.
The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border made quite an issue of people who live in remote parts of his constituency—which I, too, have walked from time to time. Most people in the United Kingdom live within a metre or two of a public road, and they are happy to tolerate occasional intrusions on their privacy. Nevertheless, I do understand and accept the point.
I think that the answer to the point made by the hon. Member for Gainsborough is really the one mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett)—it is for the access forums to try to take some of the issues into account. As the hon. Gentleman conceded, there are no simple solutions. In any case, these problems would arise regardless of whether this Bill existed. Countryside access has usually not caused much problem in areas where it has long existed, and we do not believe that it will cause much problem in this case—[Interruption.] Is the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire trying to intervene?

Mr. Paice: indicated assent.

Mr. Mullin: Please do.

Mr. Paice: I am always willing to help the Minister find his place. He has dealt with the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) on the agency's role in deciding what is improved or unimproved grassland, but he has not dealt with my amendment (a).

Mr. Mullin: indicated assent.

Mr. Paice: I should be grateful if he would explain whether the agency's opinion will be contestable by, for example, landowners who may believe that their land should not be mapped as open country.

Mr. Mullin: Yes, a legal challenge is still possible. The courts could quash any decision if irrelevant considerations are taken into account or the conclusion is wholly unreasonable. I shall deal in a moment with the hon. Gentleman's amendment (a).
I am grateful for the guarded welcome given by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) who, like the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), played a very intelligent and constructive role in our Committee proceedings. I am glad that they accept that we have attempted to deal with many of their concerns.
The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy asked about all land capable of producing a crop of hay. We do not believe that it would be satisfactory to exclude all such land from maps of open country, as potentially that would disallow access to most areas of traditional semi-natural down. In practice, because unimproved grassland tends to be of low productivity, there is very little downland that is used for hay.
We understand that there is a small number of unimproved grassland sites that are cut for hay, or that are periodically cut for hay, that may qualify. We do not, however, believe that the potential for generating a crop of hay on downland makes it inconsistent with the right of access. Where, infrequently, farmers intend to take a crop of hay, they may use voluntary measures to promote the use of paths, or use their discretionary 28 days to require the restriction or exclusion of access. If such measures are insufficient, farmers may seek directions under chapter II of the Bill for the purposes of land management where a hay crop is regularly taken from the land, and the relevant authority can make a direction
which has effect for the appropriate period every spring or summer. Therefore, there is not really any reason why problems should arise.
Amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 4 provides that, in deciding whether land consists of improved or semi-improved grassland, the test should not be whether the land appeared to the countryside body to so consist, but simply whether it was improved or semi-improved grassland. The Bill already provides, in clause 1(2), that open country is land which
appears to the appropriate countryside body to consist wholly or predominantly of mountain, moor, heath or down.
6.15 pm
It is both important and desirable for the bodies charged with mapping open countryside to be able to take sensible decisions about the extent of open countryside on the basis of careful and reasoned analysis. In the same way, it is sensible for the same principles to apply to the identification of land that does not form part of mountain, moor, heath or down because it is improved or semi-improved grassland.
Lords amendment No. 2 is, therefore, consistent with the Bill. We envisage that the countryside bodies will publish the criteria that they will use to identify improved and semi-improved grassland in the same way as they have already published draft criteria for the identification of mountain, moor, heath or down. However, the identification of such land is not an automatic exercise, and involves more than the simple application of a set of rules.
The countryside bodies will need to exercise a degree of expert judgment. The words of the Bill reflect that, and—incidentally—are derived from similar expressions used in the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 and the Countryside Act 1968, both of which were much quoted in Committee. To miss out the words "appearing to them" might well mislead people into thinking that no element of judgment is involved. The countryside bodies will exercise their discretion impartially, favouring neither landowners nor walkers.
Landowners will, however, also have a right of appeal to the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales if they do not believe that their land consists wholly or predominantly of open country, including if they believe that the land is improved grassland and therefore not mountain, moor, heath or down at all. That right of appeal—which, of course, is not available to walkers—will provide a safeguard for their interests.
Therefore, Lords amendment No. 2—I think that the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire is satisfied on this point—is intended to provide reassurance to land managers that the right of access is primarily about access to unimproved, semi-natural and open countryside.
I suggest that amendment (a) is therefore unnecessary, and I should be grateful if he did not press it.

Lords amendment agreed to.
Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 3 agreed to.

Clause 2

RIGHTS OF PUBLIC IN RELATION TO ACCESS LAND

Lords amendment: No. 4, in page 2, line 35, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
("(4) If a person becomes a trespasser on any access land by failing to comply with—

(a) subsection (l)(a),
(b) the general restrictions in Schedule 2, or
(c) any other restrictions imposed in relation to the land under Chapter II,

he may not, within 72 hours after leaving that land, exercise his right under subsection (1) to enter that land again or to enter other land in the same ownership.")

Mr. Mullin: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to take amendment (a), Lords amendments Nos. 5, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17 and 18, Lords amendment No. 19, Amendments (a), (b) and (c) thereto, Lords amendments Nos. 20 to 23, Lords amendment No. 24, amendments (a) and (b) thereto, and Lords amendments Nos. 25, 28, 29, 35 to 37 and 158 to 170.

Mr. Mullin: This group of amendments deals with restrictions on the right of access, the behaviour of those exercising the right of access, and the consequences of a breach of any restriction.
Lords amendment No. 4 and consequential Lords amendment No. 5 extend the period during which those who breach restrictions lose the statutory right of access. The amendments will ensure that a user who fails to comply with clause 2(1)(a)—by damaging a wall or fence and so on—or who breaches a schedule 2 restriction or any other restriction imposed under chapter II, will lose the statutory right for 72 hours after leaving the land. We believe that 72 hours is a reasonable time for the right to be lost in those circumstances.
The Bill provides a power in clause 16(6) to enable an owner dedicating land as access land to lift any of the restrictions in schedule 2 in so far as they relate to the land dedicated. Similarly, paragraph 6 of schedule 2 allows the relevant authority, with the consent of the owner of the land, to remove any of the restrictions in schedule 2.
Lords amendments Nos. 11, 12 and 170 make it clear that, in either circumstance, as well as the removing entirely of any restriction, it will be possible partially to lift that restriction.
Lords amendment No. 14 enables access authorities to make byelaws in anticipation of the right coming into force. It provides that the Secretary of State may not confirm byelaws until the land is access land.
Lords amendment No. 15 allows parish and town councils to enforce byelaws made on access land under clause 17 by another authority—either the access authority or a district council. We believe that it makes a modest improvement to the Bill, and we agreed to accept it. It was moved from the Opposition Front Bench on Report in another place.
Lords amendment No. 17 provides that wardens may be appointed to secure compliance with any restriction or exclusion imposed under chapter II. It is sensible that


access authorities should be able to appoint wardens for such purposes and the amendment makes it clear that it is possible.
Lords amendment No. 18 provides that, before an access authority erects a notice on access land under its powers in clause 19, it should, where reasonably practicable, consult the owner or the occupier of the land.
Lords amendment No. 19 introduces a new clause intended to ensure that the public and landowners have adequate information about their rights and responsibilities under the new right of access. It gives a duty to the countryside bodies to issue a code of conduct for the guidance of those exercising the new right, and to take the steps that they believe are necessary to ensure that the public are informed of the extent of, and means of access to, access land. It also places a duty on them to take the necessary steps to ensure that the public and landowners are informed of their rights and obligations under the new right of access and in relation to rights of way and nature conservation on access land.
The code of conduct issued under the new clause may also contain information that goes beyond the new right of access, relating to national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty and long-distance walking routes.
We concluded, not without considerable deliberation, that within the 28 days allowed in clause 21 for discretionary closures, we should include a number of days on which closures can take place at the weekend. Lords amendments Nos. 21 and 22 provide that, as part of the discretionary allowance, those entitled to that allowance should be able to restrict access or close their land, without seeking approval, on up to four days at the weekend, although not on Saturdays between 1 June and 11 August and not on Sundays between 1 June and 30 September. I believe that this represents a sensible compromise between the needs of land managers and the interests of those wishing to benefit from the new right of access.
As well as entitling landowners to exclude or restrict access on up to four days at the weekend, Lords amendment No. 21 removes the regulation-making power set out in clause 21(7), which would have enabled the days on which the discretion to exclude or restrict access may be exercised to be varied. This fulfils a recommendation of the House of Lords Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation.
Lords amendment No. 23, which was moved by my noble Friend Lord Dubs on Report in another place, is a useful amendment that allows regulations to be made to ensure that the discretion is applied in relation to properly identified units of land. We consider that it will help to ensure clarity and certainty in the exercise of the discretion under clause 21.
The question of restrictions on dogs exercised us somewhat in Committee. Lords amendment No. 24 provides new targeted measures to protect fully the interests of land management, particularly in relation to grouse shooting and lambing. Landowners will be given a new power to exclude dogs from grouse moors for specified periods of up to five years. That is intended to protect the economic interests of those who manage the land for grouse shooting. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) is not here to express his gratitude, as he pressed the Committee hard on the matter. We will take his gratitude as read.
Farmers will be able to exclude dogs from fields or enclosures of up to 15 hectares if they believe it to be necessary in connection with lambing. They may seek exclusion for a period of up to six weeks in a calendar year. In notifying restrictions under the new provisions, landowners will be required to follow procedures that will be set out in regulations. Lords amendment No. 29 provides for the making of those regulations under clause 30. Lords amendment No. 20 is consequential on No. 21, and provides that the discretionary power to exclude dogs from grouse moors is exercisable by the landowner.
Lords amendment No. 25 relates to closures because of the risk of fire. Clause 23 allows for directions to be made excluding or restricting access for the purpose of fire prevention, by reason of any exceptional weather conditions. The amendment provides that directions may also be made by reason of any exceptional change in the condition of the land. We believe that this will go a long way towards addressing concerns expressed both here and in another place about the risk of fire on access land.
Lords amendment No. 28 requires the Secretary of State for Defence to prepare and lay before both Houses of Parliament a report on all reviews of defence directions under clause 26 that have been undertaken in a given year. This is a response to an amendment tabled in Committee by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath).
Lords amendments Nos. 35 and 36 were tabled in the light of advice from the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation. They require that regulations made to vary the list of general restrictions in schedule 2 must be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. The addition—and, more important, the removal—of activities should be subject to the scrutiny of both Houses.
Lords amendment No. 37 relates to the definition of livestock in Clause 41. It is a technical amendment, consequential on an amendment made on Report in the Commons.
Lords amendments Nos. 158, 164 and 167 are intended to bring greater clarity to the effect of the restrictions in schedule 2, by making the wording more consistent with that in clause 2(1). Lords amendment No. 159 adds the feeding of livestock to the list of restricted activities under schedule 2. Lords amendment No. 160 adds trapping to the list and Lords amendment No. 161 ensures that a person on access land who has with him an "engine, instrument or apparatus" used for trapping will also be in breach of the restriction in paragraph 1(i). Lords amendment No. 162 adds a restriction on tampering with mine shaft covers, protective guards and fences used to enclose livestock.
Lords amendment No. 163 extends the period during which dogs must be on leads to five months, so that it covers the period from 1 March to 31 July. The issue was hotly debated, but that should be satisfactory to all who expressed their views in Committee. The amendment was tabled after further consultation with English Nature, in the light of concerns that the Bill did not provide adequate protection to deal, in particular, with lambing and the breeding season for ground-nesting birds.

Mr. Llwyd: I welcome the amendments. They respond to a very reasonable debate earlier in our proceedings. However, it has come to my notice that the constitutions of some ramblers groups contain a rule that they do not take dogs with them. If such groups were to be represented on local forums and were to agree with landowners and other interested parties that they would not take dogs into the countryside, what would be the Government's response? That is likely to happen in one area in my constituency.

Mr. Mullin: The Bill does not provide for that. It is quite restrictive in relation to dogs, and we have made it a great deal more restrictive. For example, dogs will be excluded from grouse moors altogether, and I was about to come to yet another restriction on the use of dogs. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will settle for that: we will just have to see how things work out when the Bill is implemented.
Lords amendments Nos. 165, 168 and 169 provide that, where dogs are required to be on leads under schedule 2, those leads must be of a fixed length of no more than 2 m. The Bill therefore contains plenty to satisfy those who raised that legitimate point in Committee.
Lords amendment No. 166 implements the recommendations of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation in relation to the period when dogs must be kept on leads. The Committee recommended that the regulatory power to vary that provision should be deleted, as the power could be used to skew the balance of the Bill. We are content with the Committee's recommendations, and are happy to implement that recommendation in full.

Mr. Paice: I give a considerable welcome to the amendments. I shall not go through them all, but the Minister should not imagine that Opposition Members do not appreciate what lies behind them. Many of the amendments are minor, but they are steps in the right direction. However, there is still room for improvement, and that is why we have tabled some further amendments.
As the Minister said, Lords amendment No. 4 changes from 24 hours to 72 hours the period of banishment for someone who breaches the regulations under schedule 2. I do not want to tire the House, but I refer hon. Members to what the Minister for the Environment said on 13 June on this matter:
It is not realistic to assume that landowners will know whether a walker has breached restrictions in the previous 72 hours on someone else's land; nor would it always be appropriate to impose such a sanction on a walker whose breach of restriction might be extremely minor. Therefore, there is no reason why the ban on returning to access land should extend beyond the rest of the day, or to access land in different ownership.—[Official Report. 13 June 2000; Vol. 351, c. 826.]
We are grateful for the Minister's repentance, but it is a complete volte face from the position that he used to hold. The change is welcome, but some shamefacedness would be appropriate.
Our amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 4 would change the period of banishment and increase the extent of the land from which a person would be banished. It would ensure that he would be banished from a particular parcel of land, and from other land in the same ownership. That was resisted in Committee, but the fact that it has been accepted now is welcome.
However, that is not enough. As the Minister said in the statement that I read out earlier, it is not going to be easy for a person to know what land belongs to whom. That is why we suggest that the application of Lords amendment No. 4 be increased, marginally, to cover adjoining land. That would put beyond doubt the area of land from which a person was banished. By definition, a person walking over open country will see no obvious delineation of ownership, so stipulating all adjoining land would remove the possibility of a person unwittingly continuing to walk on land owned by the same person as land from which he had been banished. The National Farmers Union has strongly supported the amendment.
Information is another important matter. A question widely debated in Committee concerned how people who want to use the rights enshrined in the Bill can be informed about the various minor regulations that apply to particular pieces of land. Such regulations would have to do with when the land was closed, or whether dogs had to be on leads or were forbidden. The Minister noted that some of the later amendments are very specific to pieces of land, and another matter that caused debate in Committee was whether an owner would be able to close off parts of his land.
There is a clear need for potential walkers to know what rules pertain to a piece of land on any given day. That is why our amendment (b) to Lords amendment No. 19 would incorporate into the amendment the phrase
and appropriate points of access to, …
The result would be that the Countryside Agency would have the duty to ensure that the public were informed of
the situation and extent of, and means of access to, and appropriate points of access to, access land.
That would be a sensible and small addition, and would require merely that the Countryside Agency tell people the location of the main access points.
In Committee, we argued that access should be restricted to certain points. Although amendment (b) does not go so far, it concentrates the mind on the concept that access is preferable at certain points. Those are the points about which information would have to be provided. I hope that the Minister will accept that that amendment is sensible and worth while.
Our amendments (a) and (c) to Lords amendment No. 19 deal with the requirement for consultation in the information provided by the Countryside Agency.
We welcome the Government's change of heart with regard to Lords amendments Nos. 20 to 23 and the question of Saturdays and Sundays. We did not press for Sundays to be included, as field sports do not take place on Sundays. The Minister has been more generous than we expected, but although we would be happy to trade all the Sundays when access is restricted for more Saturdays, that option is not on the table. The move to allow four Saturdays of exclusion is welcome: it may not be as many as we would have preferred, but it is a step forward. I spoke earlier about information and the need for access points. This is another example of how, day by day, the rules governing access to a piece of land may change.
Lords amendment No. 24 concerns dogs, and I welcome the Minister's change of heart on this point. Owners of grouse moors—and gamekeepers, who take such pride in their role—will welcome the amendment. However, I am puzzled by the significance of the


five-year period. Does it mean that after five years, the grouse moor in question can never again be closed off? The Minister shakes his head but perhaps he could clarify that issue.
Our amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 24 seeks to change the word "lambing" to "livestock breeding". The inclusion of lambing and the exclusion of dogs for the period of six weeks is welcome. But in Committee, we discussed other forms of livestock farming which are becoming more common in the hills of this country. Mention was made of llamas, alpacas, angora goats and deer, and yesterday I attended the launch of the bison industry in this country. On top of that, there are cattle. [Interruption.] The Minister of State laughs, but the point is that the Deputy Prime Minister earlier was exhorting people to diversify. Many farmers are diversifying into different forms of livestock.
The sensible decision to exclude dogs from fields of up to 15 hectares during the lambing period should apply to the period when cows are calving, deer are calving and llamas are doing whatever they do. [Interruption.] Goats are kidding—that is one I do know. I have no idea what llamas and alpacas do, but it no doubt consists of the same motions. This is a time of immense sensitivity for livestock, when baby animals are at considerable risk—as a walker would be. Some animals are exceptionally good mothers and would resist and resent any intrusion into what they see as their territory by someone walking, let alone someone with a dog. [Interruption.] The Minister suggests that people could walk around them, but a field of 15 hectares is not particularly large and the scope to walk round could be limited.
We propose also that the period of six weeks be increased to eight. The principal lambing period should be over in six weeks but, with any flock, it will straggle a bit. However, we should not assume that once every ewe has had a lamb, the risk is over. Those first few days are a period of great risk to the lamb—and, with some breeds, there can be a risk to anyone else who appears. Cattle breeds such as the Galloway can become extremely fierce in protection of their young. It would be very unwise for someone to take a dog into a field where a herd of Galloways had recently calved.

Mr. Llwyd: Nowadays many farmers stagger the breeding season to try to catch the market. Also, some farmers have a variety of breeds.

Mr. Paice: I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman has come to my rescue and he is right to refer to a point that I omitted.
Lords amendments Nos. 158 to 170 are generally welcome. The Minister referred to trapping and the rather quaint language that has been inserted in the Bill; he will find that references to engines and instruments go back to the 19th-century poaching Acts. Obviously Ministers were convinced in Committee by our arguments for including interference with fences, and extending the dog ban to 31 July, and I am grateful for that.
6.45 pm
The proposals for short leads came as a welcome surprise to me. In Committee, Ministers seemed to resist strongly the idea of fixing a lead length, and spent time saying why it was not necessary to define a short lead.
Overall, we welcome the Lords amendments, although some could be improved. We have put genuine propositions to the Government. I hope that Ministers feel that they are serious and worthy of inclusion in the Bill to add the final refinement to the improvements made by other amendments.

Mr. David Heath: In this group, some of the wording of some of the amendments has a certain familiarity to it, which I welcome. I am pleased to see a formulation for closures at weekends; it bears more than a passing resemblance to amendments that I tabled in Committee and on Report. I welcome its inclusion, as I do the provisions on the condition of land and the issue of reporting to this House on Ministry of Defence land.
As the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) has said, we had an engaging debate in Committee on the thorny question of short fixed leads. Our proposals were stoutly resisted, but have now been accepted. I am pleased about that.
Lords amendment No. 4 refers to exclusion for a period of time after an "offence" against the code of conduct. That is a move in the right direction. I always thought that the 24-hour exclusion was nonsense, and effectively unworkable. The 72-hour period is better, not least because it can cover the weekend. If people go off for a weekend and cause trouble, they will be excluded from the land in question for the remainder of the weekend. That is clearly understandable.
What is not understandable is why the amendment refers to land within a particular ownership. I cannot for the life of me see how people who are excluded in that way can know whether the land they are on is under the same ownership. It would be far more sensible if they were excluded from any access land during that period. That is simple and readily understandable. It is no less workable than the Government's formulation, and would be clearer. It has not been proposed, which I regret, but even at this late stage, perhaps the Minister will explain why he prefers his wording.
Codes of conduct are a crucial aspect of the Bill. During proceedings on the Bill, I, and others, have argued for the need for good communication and clarity of purpose, for the benefit of landowners and those who wish to have access. As long as everybody understands what the rules are, how they will be applied, what the land in question is and how it is defined, there will be no trouble. If people are not clear about those matters, however, that is a recipe for confrontation. That is why it is so important that we deal with the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire.
Having particular identified points of access is not a new notion—we have pursued it throughout our consideration of the Bill. We have accepted that it is not the Government's intention to make a designated point of access that is obligatory for those seeking access. However, identifying somewhere as the point of access will make it easier for people to have access to land safely and sensibly and to put up signposts and notices about restrictions that may apply because of temporary closures. The codes of conduct provide a way of doing that, so if the hon. Gentleman presses his amendment at a later stage, I will advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to support it.
I have little to say about grouse moors—I do not have the expertise of the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) on the subject. However, I am sure that the Government's proposals are sensible.
Finally, I welcome the prohibition of the feeding of livestock. We did not cover the subject properly in Committee, and I give the Government credit for having picked it up. With regard to the communicable diseases of livestock, such a prohibition is clearly one of the precautions that should be taken to prevent animals from being fed who knows what by who knows who, when people have access to open countryside.
All in all, I strongly commend the amendments to the House. This is a sensible group of amendments and would be improved still further if the Government, even at this late stage, were to accept the proposal of the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire.

Mr. Llwyd: I too broadly welcome the amendments. Lords amendments Nos. 4 and 5 increase to 72 hours the time for which a trespasser can be banned from land. How will the ban be enforced? I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath)—it would be far better to ban trespassers from all access land, because there will be problems of definition. If people behave reprehensibly on one parcel of land, what is to stop them behaving in the same way on the land adjoining? I prefer the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, but that is not to say that I disagree with the Conservative amendment (a) to cover adjoining land. That would improve the Bill; in fact, either suggestion would improve the Bill. As it stands, it needs improving, because otherwise there will be problems.
We should be thinking about problems of definition throughout the Bill. Much work has been done over the past few months, and the Bill has been greatly improved, but I honestly think that there is still a potential area of conflict. A person banned from one small parcel of land may well hop over on to the next and carry on doing what he or she should not have been doing in the first place.

Mr. Paice: I shall try to explain, very succinctly, why we decided to refer to adjoining land rather than all access land. We felt that "all access land" would include all access land throughout England and Wales. That may be stretching a point, but there is nothing to say that someone banished from access land in the hon. Gentleman's constituency on a Saturday might not appear in the Lake district on a Sunday. The provision would be unenforceable—nobody would know, or could be expected to know, whether that person had been banned from land in Snowdonia. So we chose the phrase in the amendment to mean, effectively, a particular whole parcel of access land.

Mr. Llwyd: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that explanation. I believe that his wording is preferable, and I do not know why the Government do not adopt it. If not, there will be an area of conflict, which is, I am sure, the last thing that anybody here wants.
I welcome Lords amendment No. 18, which places a duty on an access authority to consult the owner or occupier of the land before erecting notices. That subject

was also hotly debated in Committee, and I am pleased that at the eleventh hour the Government have seen the good sense of the suggestion.
It is unfortunate that the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) is not here to speak about closures on Saturdays for shooting. However, I am sure that he is here in spirit, and that he will be delighted when he finds out that his well reasoned and well presented arguments have found favour with the Government, even at this stage.
It is important to improve the Bill, inasmuch as access points would mean that people did not have to scramble over walls. We have been through this before. We know that people using access land should not interfere without reasonable excuse with any fence, barrier or other device, including stone walls. However, amending the Bill so that some access points would be identified would not only make things simple for those using access but would contribute to what the Deputy Prime Minister referred to earlier today as diversification. Farmers could charge for car parking, and perhaps provide other services, at access points. It might be a way of earning extra income and providing a service at the same time. That is a further argument in favour of the amendment.
I welcome the Opposition's amendments (a) to (c) to Lords amendment No. 19, which aim to increase consultation between relevant bodies. Consultation is one of the mainsprings of the Bill. The quality of consultation is very important, as is the need to ensure that it is as wide as possible.
Lords amendment No. 24 would allow an occupier or owner to exclude dogs from a field or enclosure of not more than 15 hectares for a period of up to six weeks in any calendar year. I am not restating what has been said, although the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) has already made the case. I suggest, as he did, that six weeks is not very long if various types of sheep are breeding at different times. Mountain sheep, lowland sheep and other breeds all go on to the ffridd and inby land at some point. It is important to look at that again.
I know that the Minister will say that it will be possible to apply for an exemption at that stage. I certainly hope so. If that is the case, and if the hon. Gentleman is confident that an extension of, say, another couple of months would be possible—[Interruption.] Seriously, there are farmers in my constituency for whom the lambing season lasts four and a half months. That is the point that I am getting at. I hope that a missive will arrive from some corner of the Chamber with some information on that matter. No doubt it will be possible to apply for an exemption.
7 pm
The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire said that 15 hectares did not make a very large field. In my neck of the woods, that is a huge field. Often, ffridd land will stretch from one farm to another, and not be fenced, as in the idea of community farming, joint sharing, and so on. There are many places in Wales where such land will consist of considerably more than 15 hectares, but will not necessarily be enclosed. Such land might not be a field as such, but would still be subject to the Act.
I seek an assurance from the Government that there will be some effort—be it a publicity campaign or something else—actively to discourage people from taking dogs on to the land during the breeding season. The Minister will know how important it is for young or pregnant animals not to be disturbed.
Will the Minister please respond to a point that I made earlier, which I shall restate now? I, and other Opposition Members, argued in Committee for a 2 m lead to be required—as proposed in Lords amendment No. 169—and I am pleased that the Government have given way on that issue. As I said, there is an access forum—albeit in shadow form—in my constituency, on which the Ramblers Association is represented, as it should be. The association has an internal rule that its members do not take dogs with them when they ramble. Obviously, farmers and occupiers would find such a rule preferable, as it would do away with any question of danger during lambing. If that forum were to decide, totally of its own free will, that it wished to ban dogs on those lands, what would be the Government's response? That question must be addressed, because the problem might also occur in other areas.
It is important to consider the definition of livestock again. I shall not go through the whole gamut of alpacas, llamas, buffalos and even wild boars, but we are dealing with more than simply deer, sheep and cattle. With those remarks, and subject to my questions being answered, I welcome the amendments.

Sir Peter Emery: I shall be brief. I have sat through the whole debate and I have only one query that I would like the Minister to elucidate. It relates to the five-year limit for the ban on dogs on a grouse moor. Obviously, that will be either possible or not possible to implement. I happen to believe that if one is to manage a grouse moor sensibly, it will not be possible. I cannot therefore understand the proposed limit of five years. The Minister appeared to shake his head when my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) asked whether there would be such a limit. I should be delighted if the Minister explained why.
I shall not detain the House much longer. Any Government who guillotine debate on 280 amendments are expecting a great deal of the House. I speak as someone who was Chairman of the Procedure Committee for many years. No Leader of the House believes that such guillotines are good. Every Leader of the House, whatever his or her party, would attempt to ensure that legislation was not dealt with in that way.

Mr. Mullin: On the final point made by the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery), the guillotine is rather fortunate for the Conservative party, because he is its only Back-Bench Member present.

Sir Peter Emery: At this moment.

Mr. Mullin: At this moment and through most, although not quite all, of the debate. We have spared Opposition Members the embarrassment of having to scrutinise us in too much detail. I believe that the time allocated will be quite sufficient.
On the question of the five-year limit raised by the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), every landowner will have to take certain steps after five years to renew the exclusion—for example, by notifying the Countryside Agency that the moor is still used for grouse. We would not want suddenly to find that the moor had stopped being used for grouse some time ago, but that the exclusion still prevailed. The landowner will have to demonstrate that the restriction is still needed, and, provided that he can do so, it can be renewed. I do not think that Opposition Members—who are as keen as we are to dispose of unnecessary regulation—would want that to happen every year. We therefore chose a period of five years. The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire at least agrees that that is reasonable, and I am grateful for that.

Sir Peter Emery: The Minister makes the point that if the moor has ceased to be a grouse moor, the restriction will be lifted, and that is absolutely right. However, if the same conditions exist as existed when the licence was originally granted, would the Minister expect it to be extended?

Mr. Mullin: Yes, I would.
Amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 4 would provide that the loss of a statutory right of access following a breach of the general restrictions in chapter II would extend not only to land in the same ownership but to adjoining land. Our concern is that the approach should be fair both to users of the new right and to landowners, and that it should be practical to enforce. The exclusion is going to be difficult to enforce in any case—let us be realistic about that.
The amendment is both impractical and unenforceable. It is very unlikely that the owner of the adjoining land would even know that the walker had breached a restriction on other land, and he would therefore have no reason to ask him to leave. Even a walker might not know of the breach, if the owner of the land on which the breach took place was not bothered by it and allowed the person to remain on the land. Let us remember that a breach of a restriction may amount to no more than giving a carrot to a horse or bathing in a stream. These are going be some of the most regulated walkers on the planet, and we do not want to extend the degree of restriction under which they will be placed.

Mr. Paice: Is the Minister really saying that if a landowner has not apprehended somebody committing a misdemeanour, that the individual is unaware that he has committed one, and that there has therefore been no banishment, that would be a justification for not including adjoining land? Obviously, we are discussing circumstances in which someone has engaged in one of the forbidden activities and has been apprehended by the landowner or his agent, who has told him that he must get off the land for 24 hours. The reason for our amendment is not so much so that adjoining landowners will know whether someone has been banned, but so that the individual who has been banned knows that he must get off all of that parcel of open country. As I tried to explain to the Minister, it is difficult—often impossible—to tell where ownership changes in open country.

Mr. Mullin: We are in danger of making fairly heavy weather of this. We want to ensure that the restrictions—penalties, one might call them—are both practical and enforceable, and that there is some clarity about them. We honestly think that if a walker moves on to land in different ownership, he must continue to abide by the restrictions or he will lose his rights on that land, too. It is a practical requirement that both landowners and walkers will understand. We cannot go further.

Mr. Paice: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Mullin: I understood that the hon. Gentleman was anxious to get on. We are making awfully heavy weather of this.

Mr. Paice: Any heavy weather is because the Minister does not seem able to accept what is blatantly obvious to us. If a landowner apprehends someone on his land who is contravening the obligations and he says, "Get off my land for the rest of today", or for 72 hours, and the chap wanders off across Snowdonia, how does the walker know when he has got off that landowner's land?

Mr. Mullin: No doubt the landowner will tell him.
Amendments (a) and (c) to Lords amendment No. 19 would give a duty to the countryside bodies to consult representatives of landowners and relevant conservation bodies before issuing codes of conduct under clause 19. We do not need to prescribe the way in which the countryside bodies should go about producing codes. They have considerable experience in producing such material. The Countryside Agency, for example, already has a duty to prepare a country code relating to national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty and long-distance routes. Clause 19 allows the agency to use the new code of conduct to fulfil the existing duty in section 86(1) of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, in addition to providing new information about the right of access. Similarly, the Countryside Agency is already under a duty to provide information about the countryside, including information about prevention of damage and a proper standard of behaviour on the part of those visiting the countryside.
The new countryside access forum will no doubt have views on the code, and the countryside bodies will undoubtedly want to listen to those views. Were we to give the countryside bodies a specific duty to consult landowners and conservation groups, we would invite questions as to why the Bill contained no duty to consult other groups, such as those representing walkers or local authorities. They, too, would have an interest in ensuring that the code was balanced and comprehensive. I believe that the countryside bodies are best suited to decide who should be consulted. We shall expect them to consult as broadly as possible. They are extremely experienced in undertaking duties such as that imposed by clause 19 and in consulting the relevant bodies. Amendments (a) and (c) are unnecessary.
I am pleased to be able to offer the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire reassurance on amendment (b) to Lords amendment No. 19, relating to appropriate points of access. Lords amendment No. 19 is explicit in placing a duty on the Countryside Agency to take steps to ensure that the public are informed of the situation,

extent and means of access to access land. The term "means of access" is given a wide meaning in the Bill. It comprises
any opening in a wall, fence or hedge
whether or not such an opening has a stile or gate. Means of access therefore include any appropriate points of access. We expect the Countryside Agency to promote the most convenient and suitable means of access when it provides information to the public about how they might benefit from the new opportunities offered by the new right of access. I hope that that reassurance will enable the hon. Gentleman not to press his amendment.

Mr. Paice: I am grateful to the Minister for the conciliatory way in which he has approached our amendment. Will he explain a little more? The purpose of our amendment on points of access was that the information should indicate the best places to access the moor. That is where the code of conduct and all the rules and regulations would be displayed for the information of the public. As the Minister rightly said, the term "means of access" is much more widely defined. There may be many means of access. On an open moorland with a road through it, the whole lot is a means of access. We tabled the amendment to provide suggested, not statutory, access points at which walkers could be given information. I am not sure that the Minister has fully taken that on board.

Mr. Mullin: It is perfectly sensible to direct people to the most logical points of access. I can only repeat that we expect the Countryside Agency to provide information about the most appropriate access points. The hon. Gentleman will have to think about it, but I honestly think that we have met that point.
Amendments (a) and (b) to Lords amendment No. 24 would amend the provision in clause 23 for landowners to exclude dogs from fields and enclosures if they believe it to be necessary in connection with lambing. Amendment (a) would broaden the exclusion of dogs for the purposes of lambing so that dogs could be excluded for the purposes of any livestock breeding. Amendment (b) would extend the six-week period to eight weeks.
I shall deal first with amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 24. It is not necessary to provide blanket powers to exclude dogs where livestock breeding takes place. The Countryside Agency has recently produced a report on the impact of public access on livestock management. The report supports our view that sheep are significantly more likely to suffer disturbance from the mere presence of dogs at sensitive times of the year than are other livestock such as cattle. The cattle are much more likely to pose a danger to walkers and their dogs than the other way around. Sheep are by far the most common livestock to be found in open countryside. It is inconceivable that bison or alpaca would be raised in open country rather than on improved pastures, but if restrictions are needed, directions may be sought from the relevant authorities.

Mr. Damian Green: I am not clear about the logic of the Minister's argument. It does not seem a strong argument to say that sheep and lambs will be more affected by interference than cattle and that in the latter case the danger would be to walkers. That seems a strong


argument for widening the restrictions, as we propose. To do so would protect walkers. I am puzzled that the Minister advances that argument in favour of keeping the restrictions narrow.

Mr. Mullin: As a walker, when I come across cattle, particularly—

Mr. Llwyd: Of the male variety.—

Mr. Mullin—: or of the female variety when they have calves, I steer a wide circle round them, and I recommend any other sensible walker to do the same.
The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) asked whether the local access forum could extend the restriction to ban dogs. I repeat that it would be for the relevant authority to impose tighter restrictions on dogs, but it must have regard to any representations made by the local access forum.
Let me emphasise that, under schedule 2, dogs are required to be on leads in the vicinity of all livestock at all times. We have introduced an amendment that provides that leads should be short; so on any access land on which livestock was present, dogs would already be under tight control. Where there is a genuine case for stronger restrictions, or even a complete ban, the Bill provides for local arrangements to be put in place.
Clause 23 is intended to provide a simple and quick mechanism for those landowners who are most likely to need to exclude dogs to do so with the minimum of red tape. It is not the only mechanism whereby dogs may be excluded, and I believe that it is right that it should be targeted. Therefore, if the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy will forgive me, I cannot support that amendment.
As for amendment (b) to Lords amendment No. 24, I do not believe that it is necessary to extend the period that dogs may be excluded from six to eight weeks, but I think that I can answer the point made by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy. I appreciate that six weeks is not sufficient to cover the entire lambing season, and it is not intended to be.
I understand that the way in which lambing is managed means that sheep in any one field or enclosure would have been grouped according to their likely delivery date, and would be expected to lamb within a three-week period. In any one field or enclosure, therefore, it would be rare for the entire six-week closure allowance to be needed, and it would, of course, be open to farmers—this is the key point—to close different fields for different six-week periods.
We believe that the provision is more than adequate to allow farmers to continue with existing lambing practices unhindered by walkers' dogs. As I have already said, where, exceptionally, closure beyond six weeks was required, landowners could apply to the relevant body.
We believe that clause 23, in conjunction with the other controls on dogs for which the Bill provides, comprises an effective package of measures for the control of dogs near livestock. We do not believe that it is necessary to go further.

Mr. Paice: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I fear that some of those responses were wholly

inadequate. When the appropriate moment arrives, I should like formally to move amendment (b) to Lords amendment No. 19.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is quite acceptable.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 5 agreed to.

Clause 11

REGULATIONS RELATING TO MAPS

Lords amendment: No. 6, in page 6, line 44, after ("authorities") insert (", local access forums")

Mr. Mullin: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 13, Lords amendment No. 16 and amendment (a) thereto, and Lords amendments Nos. 27, 127 and 128.

Mr. Mullin: These Lords amendments together deliver the Government's commitments, expressed in another place, to give statutory status to local access forums. This is a matter to which the Liberal Democrats gave high priority.
We had from the outset intended that forums, whether statutory or non-statutory, should play a key role in helping to improve public access to the countryside. We were persuaded, however, that unless we made them statutory, there would be concern that forums would not be set up everywhere they ought to be, and that the weight accorded to their views might be less. We accordingly tabled an amendment on Report, writing local access forums clearly into the Bill.
The role of local access forums will go wider than part I. They will have a key advisory role in helping access authorities determine how best to make the countryside more accessible and enjoyable for recreation, in ways that take proper account of social, economic and environmental interests. Forums will, for example, be involved in improving the rights of way network and in the development of local recreation and access strategies.
We are keen to ensure that forums should be sufficiently flexible in their make-up and operation to take account of varying circumstances and needs in different areas of the country. For example, the issues relevant to a heavily populated area with relatively little open countryside might be very different from those in a more remote rural area.
The amendments place a duty on access authorities to establish forums in their area. Forums will need to include a balanced representation both of users of the right of access under part I and rights of way generally, and of landowners, managers and occupiers of land.
Due weight will be given to the forums' advice. The amendments require relevant decision-making authorities to have proper regard to forums' views in reaching decisions—for example, in relation to draft maps, the imposition of byelaws, proposals for long-term restrictions and closures of access land, as well as on wider access issues contained in new right of way improvement plans.
In providing their views, forums will need to take into account relevant guidance issued by the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales. The amendments demonstrate the central role that we intend forums will play in advising on the operation and implementation of the new right of access.

Mr. Green: I shall comment briefly on the wider issue of local access forums and speak particularly to amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 16.
Broadly speaking, we welcome the improvements that their Lordships have made to the Bill. Local access forums will provide a useful injection of local knowledge into the administration of access land and will help the access authorities to ensure that decisions are taken at a suitably local level.
Amendment (a) calls for the local access authority to consult the local access forum about the adequacy of the provision of wardens.
It was widely agreed on both sides in Committee that adequate wardening is an extremely important part of ensuring the success of the new access regime. The local access forums can thus play a valuable role in what will otherwise become the weak point—or the weakest link, as we topically say—in the arrangement, simply because there will not be funding for adequate wardening, unless people argue forcefully for it at a local level.
Clearly, different areas will require differing amounts of wardening, and that will be an easy cut for a local access authority to make, as wardening will be one of the more expensive procedures involved in creating an adequate new access regime. In local authorities that cover both urban and rural areas, the focus on the rural areas may well go by default.
It is crucial for a wardening system to be adequate not just in the early stages of the new regime, but throughout. If the Bill is successful, many new people will be attracted to walking in open country.
"Warden" is an unfortunately negative term. Perhaps we should have spoken of rangers throughout.

Mr. Mullin: Or warders.

Mr. Green: I hope not warders, although the Minister seems to take a rather insouciant view of people committing offences, as his reaction to the previous group of amendments showed. Perhaps he thinks that warders may be necessary, but rangers would have been a better word to use, as it gives the impression of help, rather than control.
Whatever the terminology, it would be helpful to have experts around the access areas, and local access forums would be a powerful voice encouraging that.
The Minister will know that the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors has stated that so far, in land where there is access, one warden for every 400 hectares is a sensible use of resources. It is equally clear from all our debates on previous stages of the Bill that the amount of money that the Government have put aside for implementing the new system would not allow such a wardening effort.

Mr. Bennett: In most national parks that have a ranger service in place, a large proportion of that service is

provided by volunteers. Although there is a cost in training and supervising, it is not the same as the cost involved in paying wages to those people.

Mr. Green: The hon. Gentleman is right. However, the number of volunteers is, by definition, limited, and those who are most enthusiastic have probably already volunteered. The new access regime will cover an enormously expanded area of land. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is unlikely that people will volunteer to the extent that they do for national parks.
The hon. Gentleman almost encourages me to argue that if one wanted to pay small sums to encourage people to volunteer—they would be semi-volunteers, semi-paid—the minimum wage legislation would prevent that. However, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I expect that you would not want me to go down that route.—[Interruption.] The Minister says that he would be happy with that. I think that other hon. Members would be less happy.
Wardening is clearly an issue. We will need far more wardens than previously. With due respect to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), I suspect that there will not be enough volunteers. Therefore local authorities will have to find the money, or the Government will have to subsidise them. We need a powerful local voice to say, "To make this work properly and to encourage people to behave safely and well, a large-scale effort should be made to provide wardens"—or rangers, or whatever we wish to call them. That would be yet another practical improvement.
Throughout the passage of the Bill we have sought to improve it in small, practical ways. The amendment is just another effort in that direction, and I hope that the Government can accept it.

Mr. David Heath: I am delighted with the Government for accepting the proposition that local access forums should be referred to in the Bill. I am even prepared to forgo the opportunity of a debate on what is the proper plural of forum—a matter which we considered at some length in Committee.
It was obvious to me from the start that we needed to have a statutory reference to local access forums if they were to be established throughout the country and to succeed. That reference has been put in place, and that I wholeheartedly welcome, although it might have been nicer if it had been included a little earlier.
Since we last discussed these matters, I had the opportunity to attend the local access forum for the Exmoor national park at Dulverton. It was extremely useful to exchange with its members experiences of how they work. It was clear that there was no unanimity of view. People were representing different interests, some of which were occasionally in conflict with those of others. However, there was respect between landowners, land users and those seeking to use land for recreational purposes. Surely that is at the core of what we are trying to achieve.
I admire the ingenuity of the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) in finding an opportunity to discuss the important issue of wardening and ranger services at this stage in our deliberations. I do not think that anything will stop local access forums talking about warden and ranger


services in their areas. That issue will be at the forefront of their considerations, and much of the discussion will be led by people who are employed or who volunteer to do the work. That is the experience in the national parks. However, there is real concern about whether local authorities throughout the country will be able to devote sufficient resources to enable a specific job to be done if we are to make a success of the Bill.
I suspect that we shall not see the amendment pressed to a vote, but I hope that the Minister will clearly understand the concerns that have been expressed by Members on both sides of the House about the adequacy of warden services and the adequacy of the funding that will underpin those services, and about whether it will be possible to achieve the results that we want to see. I wholly welcome this group of Lords amendments.

Mr. Llwyd: I add my voice to what has just been said. Statutory life has been given to the concept of local access forums, which I welcome. However, the Government should ensure that authorities are guided to implement proposals in consultation with key interests such as farmers and landowners within a pre-determined time scale. Experience of the Countryside Agency's so-called name-and-shame approach has not proved an effective method of maintaining implementation pressure on authorities. For example, in preparing rights of way improvement plans, authorities are not required to consider the potential for creating, diverting or stopping-up, or otherwise improving the network on a local scale. That is a significant omission.
Individuals should be able to propose such works during the preparation of plans. It is vital that local authorities consult farmers and landowners, especially as the status of the plans is to become a material consideration in highway authority decision making. I am pleased that the argument has prevailed and that local access forums appear in the Bill. They must work properly if the Act is to work properly. Proper consultation will ensure the minimum potential for conflict, as we would all wish to see when the Act is implemented.
I fully support Conservative amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 16, which seeks to implement occasional consultation between the access authority and the local access forums about the provision of wardens. It is eminently sensible and most desirable.

Mr. Mullin: I am grateful for the general welcome that has been accorded to the amendments. It will not come as a surprise to hon. Members that the Government will resist amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 16. It is not necessary. Lords amendment No. 16 places a duty on access authorities to consult the relevant local access forums before exercising their power to appoint wardens to help manage the right of access, and from time to time after that. That ensures that local access forums will be appropriately consulted. We do not need a further duty to consult access forums on the adequacy of the provision of wardens. We would expect consultation between forums and access authorities about the provision of wardens as part of the normal consultation about the operation and management of the right of access. That is already provided for in the Bill.
There has been debate in the House and in another place about whether the access authorities should be under a duty to appoint wardens. We have made it clear that authorities should have a power, not a duty, to decide whether to appoint wardens, and if so, how many.
The amendment would not impose a duty, but I suspect that it is yet another attempt to exert pressure on access authorities to appoint wardens, even where they may not be needed. We must remember that the sort of land that will be subject to the new right of access is often in the more remote areas, which will remain inaccessible to all but the most adventurous. We do not want or need a veritable army of wardens in such areas. Instead, all that may be needed is a few signs or information boards placed at the appropriate entry. I am sure that the party of deregulation, the Conservative party, would not want me to labour that point.
In the areas that are subject to the most pressure from walkers, more intensive management measures may be appropriate, including wardening services. We intend to provide adequate funding—I mentioned some figures earlier—to help to ensure that the right of access is managed effectively and avoids interference with day-to-day management. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will accept that the amendment is not necessary.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 13

OCCUPIERS' LIABILITY

Lords amendment: No. 7, in page 8, line 6, leave out ("("the 2000 Act")").

The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 8, Lords amendment No. 9 and amendment (a) thereto, and Lords amendment No. 10.

Mr. Meacher: I am conscious that time is moving on fast, and I will be as brief as I can be.
The group of amendments deals with the extent to which occupiers should have liability for harm sustained to other people exercising a right of access to their land. Lords amendments Nos. 8 and 9 remove liability in relation to personal injuries suffered by people climbing over, through, or under a wall, fence or gate, except by the proper use of the gate or stile.
The amendments respond to the concerns that have been expressed by landowners that there would be problems with people hurting themselves when climbing over man-made features that are extremely common in open country, such as dry stone walls. We do not believe that the courts would hold landowners liable in such cases, but we accept that in this increasingly litigious age there might be people who tried to bring cases, however unjustified. It is therefore reasonable that we should reduce the risk of the consequent hassle by excluding from liability particularly common features that are unlikely to cause injury to anybody but the careless.
Lords amendment no. 9 removes liability regarding any river, stream, ditch or pond, whether or not it is a natural feature, and addresses concerns expressed by landowners
and conservation interests that occupiers should bear no responsibility in relation to such features, even when they have been made or changed by man. In particular, we accept that it may often be difficult to tell whether a pond was originally man-made or is partly man-made.
Lords amendment no. 10 does two things. It confirms that an occupier retains a minimal liability when he does something that creates a danger on his land with the intention of creating that risk, or is reckless as to whether such a risk is created. The provision requires the courts to have regard to the particular importance of not placing an undue burden—whether financial or otherwise—on the occupier. It also requires the courts to take into account the need to maintain the character of the countryside, including features of historical, traditional or archaeological interest. We want to make it clear that we do not want the countryside littered with forests of signs and miles of fences.
Finally, the courts are required to have regard to any code or guidance issued by the countryside bodies—for example, a warning in the code to walkers to inform themselves about hazards and be on the lookout for them. That should make it even more unlikely that a landowner would be held liable except in the most exceptional circumstances. I hope therefore that the amendments are acceptable.

Mr. Paice: May I express our general support for this group of amendments and for the considerable distance that the Minister has travelled from his obsession with the term "natural features", which we debated in Committee? I welcome unreservedly the moves that he has made. However, we have tabled amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 9, which would add to clause 13 the words
a risk resulting from a feature of historic, traditional or archaeological interest.
That was discussed widely in the other place, but after reflection on that debate—I do not doubt that the Minister was closely involved in that consideration—it is worth pushing the matter once again. Many features of open country, such as iron age forts, do not fit the Minister's expanded criteria to absolve occupiers from liability. The terminology of amendment (a) would not widen massively the exemption from liability, but would reflect the reality of what is situated in open country. I hope that the Minister will find that constructive and be prepared to accept our amendment.

Mr. David Heath: Very briefly, I too welcome the Government's move from their original formulation, which was unnecessarily restrictive. The amendments helpfully expand the Government's intention from what it was in the initial stages of the Bill. I share the concern of the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) that a bias against Celtic and Saxon Britain may be maintained. As we explored in Committee, those features could cause problems, but the hon. Gentleman's formulation, which was discussed in another place, as he says, is an open-ended definition that is also open to an enormous amount of legal challenge. Lords amendment No. 10, which refers to the code of conduct, deals with the matter. However, if it does that insufficiently in future, Parliament will clearly need to return to it.

Mr. Meacher: Not for the first time, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) has expressed a view that is shared by the Government. Amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 9 would extend the exclusion of liability to any historical, traditional or archaeological feature. I have already referred to the guidance in Lords amendment No. 10, which was mentioned by the hon. Gentleman and will require the courts to have regard to the importance of maintaining such features. That will ensure that the probability of liability arising from those features is very low indeed. However, there is no reason why we should make a special case for the exclusion of all liability from such features, especially if they have been buried, either partly or completely, when they would be virtually indistinguishable from any other access land.
There has been much complaint about the need to identify natural features. However, a rigid rule automatically excluding all historical or traditional features would be impossible to apply. I give great credit to Conservative Front Benchers, Liberal Democrat Members and Plaid Cymru, as they have influenced us. Under the pressure, we have moved a considerable distance from our original argument. Despite all that we have done to reduce liability to a bare minimum, and given the lack of evidence that there is a problem, the issue of liability will remain a concern unless the Bill eliminates liability totally. For the reasons that I have already given, we do not believe that that can ever be right. We have gone as far as we reasonably can. To remove all liability of occupiers of access land to those responsibly exercising the right of access, including children, would be a step too far and could not be justified.

Lords amendment agreed to.
Lords amendments Nos. 8 to 18 agreed to.

After clause 19

Lords amendment: No. 19, to insert the following new clause—Codes of conduct and other information—
.—(1) In relation to England, it shall be the duty of the Countryside Agency to issue, and from time to time revise, a code of conduct for the guidance of persons exercising the right conferred by section 2(1) and of persons interested in access land, and to take such other steps as appear to them expedient for securing—

(a) that the public are informed of the situation and extent of, and means of access to, access land, and
(b) that the public and persons interested in access land are informed

(i) of their respective rights and obligations under this Part, and
(ii) with regard to public rights of way on, and nature conservation in relation to, access land.

(2) In relation to Wales, it shall be the duty of the Countryside Council for Wales to issue, and from time to time revise, a code of conduct for the guidance of persons exercising the right conferred by section 2(1) and of persons interested in access land, and to take such other steps as appear to them expedient for securing the results mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1).

(3) A code of conduct issued by the Countryside Agency or the Countryside Council for Wales may include provisions in pursuance of subsection (1) or (2) and in pursuance of section 86(1) of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949.

(4) The powers conferred by subsections (1) and (2) include power to contribute towards expenses incurred by other persons."

Amendment proposed to the Lords amendment: (b), in subsection (1)(a), after "means of access to", insert
'and appropriate points of access to,'.—[Mr. Paice]

Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made—

The House divided: Ayes 156, Noes 327.

Division No. 358]
[7.47 pm


AYES


Allan, Richard
Greenway, John


Amess, David
Grieve, Dominic


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Hague, Rt Hon William


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Hammond, Philip


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Hancock, Mike


Baker, Norman
Harvey, Nick


Baldry, Tony
Hawkins, Nick


Ballard, Jackie
Hayes, John


Bercow, John
Heald, Oliver


Beresford, Sir Paul
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Blunt, Crispin
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Body, Sir Richard
Horam, John


Boswell, Tim
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Brady, Graham
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Brand, Dr Peter
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Brazier, Julian
Keetch, Paul


Breed, Colin
Key, Robert


Browning, Mrs Angela
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Kirkwood, Archy


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Lait, Mrs Jaacqui


Burnett, John
Lansley, Andrew


Burns, Simon
Leigh, Edward


Butterfill, John
Letwin, Oliver


Cash, William
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Chidgey, David
Lidington, David


Chope, Christopher
Livsey, Richard


Clappison, James
Lloyd, Rt Hon sir Peter (Fareham)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Llwyd, Elfyn


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth
Loughton, Tim


(Rushcliffe)
Luff, Peter


Cotter, Brian
Macgregor, Rt Hon John


Cran, James
MacKay, Rt Hon John


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
McLoughlin, patrick


Day, Stephen
Madel, Sir David


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Maples, John


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Duncan, Alan
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Duncan Smith, Iain
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Moore, Michael


Fabricant, Michael
Moss, Malcolm


Fallon, Michael
Nicholls, Patrick


Fearn, Ronnie
Norman, Archie


Flight, Howard
Oaten, Mark


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Öpik, Lembit


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Ottaway, Richard


Fox, Dr Liam
Page, Richard


Gale, Roger
Paice, James


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Pickles, Eric


Gibb, Nick
Prior, David


Gidley, Sandra
Randall, John


Gill, Christopher
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Rendel, David


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Robathan, Andrew


Green, Damian
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)





Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Townend, John


Ross, William (E Lond'y)
Trend, Michael


Ruffley, David
Tyler, Paul


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Tyrie, Andrew



St Aubyn, Nick
Viggers, Peter


Sanders, Adrian
Waterson, Nigel


Sayeed, Jonathan
Webb, Steve


Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Wells, Bowen


Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Whittingdale, John


Soames, Nicholas
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Wilkinson, John


Spicer, Sir Michael
Willetts, David


Spring, Richard
Willis, Phil


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wilshire, David


Streeter, Gary
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Stunell, Andrew
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Swayne, Desmond
Yeo, Tim


Syms, Robert
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)



Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Taylor, Sir Teddy
Mr. James Gray and


Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.


NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Clark, Dr Lynda


Ainger, Nick
(Edinburgh Pentlands)


Alexander, Douglas
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Allen, Graham
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Clelland, David


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Clwyd, Ann


Ashton, Joe
Coaker, Vernon


Atherton, Ms Candy
Coffey, Ms Ann


Austin, John
Cohen,Harry


Bailey, Adrian
Coleman, Iain


Barron, Kevin
Colman, Tony


Battle, John
Connarty, Michael


Bayley, Hugh
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)


Begg, Miss Anne
Cooper, Yvette


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Corbett, Robin


Bennett, Andrew F
Corbyn, Jeremy


Benton, Joe
Corston, Jean


Bermingham, Gerald
Cousins, Jim


Berry, Roger
Cranston, Ross


Best, Harold
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Betts, Clive
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Blackman, Liz
Cummings, John


Blizzard, Bob
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Dalyell, Tam


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Darling, Ft Hon Alistair


Borrow, David
Darvill, Keith


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Davidson, Ian


Bradshaw, Ben
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Davis, Rt Hon Terry


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
(B'ham Hodge H)


Brown, Russell (Dumfries) 
Dawson, Hilton


Browne, Desmond
Dean, Mrs Janet


Buck, Ms Karen
Denham, John


Burgon, Colin
Dismore,Andrew


Butler, Mrs Christine
Dobbin, Jim


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Donohoe, Brian H


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Doran, Frank


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Dowd, Jim


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Drew, David


Cann, Jamie
Drown, Ms Julia


Caplin, Ivor
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Casale, Roger
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Caton, Martin
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Cawsey, Ian
Edwards, Huw


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Efford, Clive


Chaytor, David
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Clapham, Michael
Ennis, Jeff






Fitzpatrick, Jim
Leslie, Christopher


Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna
Levitt, Tom


Flint, Caroline
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Flynn, Paul
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Lock, David


Foulkes, George
Love, Andrew


Galloway, George
McAvoy, Thomas


Gardiner, Barry
McCabe, Steve


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Gerrard, Neil
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian


Gibson, Dr Ian
(Makerfield)


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McDonagh, Siobhain


Godman, Dr Norman A
Macdonald, Calum


Godsiff, Roger
McDonnell, John


Goggins, Paul
McFall, John


Golding, Mrs Llin
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
McNamara, Kevin


Grocott, Bruce

McNulty, Tony


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Macshane, Denis


Hanson, David
Mactaggart, Fiona


Healey, John
McWalter, Tony


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Mallaber, Judy


Hendrick, Mark
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Hepburn, Stephen
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Heppell, John
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Hesford, Stephen
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Martlew, Eric


Hinchliffe, David
Maxton, John


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Meale, Alan


Hope, Phil
Merron, Gillian


Hopkins, Kelvin
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Howells, Dr Kim

Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Hoyle, Lindsay
Miller, Andrew


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Moffatt, Laura


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Humble, Mrs Joan
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hurst, Alan
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hutton, John
Morley, Elliot


Iddon, Dr Brian
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle


Illsley, Eric
(B'ham yardley)


Ingram, Rt Hon Adam
Morris, Rt Hon Sir John


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
(Aberavon)


Jamieson, David
Mudie, George


Jenkins, Brian
Mullin, Chris


Johnson, Miss Melanie
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


(Welwyn Hatfield)
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Norris, Dan


Jones, Ms Jenny
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


(Wolverh'ton SW)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Organ, Mrs Diana


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Palmer, Dr Nick


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Pearson, Ian


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Pendry, Tom


Keeble, Ms Sally
Pickthall, Colin


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Plaskitt, James


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Pollard, Kerry


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Pope, Greg


Khabra, Piara S
Powell, Sir Raymond


Kidney, David
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Kilfoyle, Peter
Prescott, Rt Hon John


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Primarolo, Dawn


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Prosser, Gwyn


Kingham, Ms Tess
Purchase, Ken


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Quinn, Lawrie


Lammy, David
Rammell, Bill


Laxton, Bob
Raynsford, Nick


Lepper, David
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)





Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Robertson, John
Stringer, Graham


(Glasgow Anniesland)
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Rogers, Allan
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
(Dewsbury)


Rooney, Terry
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Rowlands, Ted
Temple-Morris, Peter


Roy, Frank
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Ruane, Chris
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Ruddock, Joan
Timms, Stephen


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Tipping, Paddy


Ryan, Ms Joan
Todd, Mark


Salter, Martin
Touhig, Don


Sarwar, Mohammad
Trickett, Jon


Savidge, Malcolm
Truswell, Paul


Sawford, Phil
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Shaw, Jonathan
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Sheerman, Barry
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Shipley, Ms Debra
Twigg, Derek (Halton)



Short, Rt Hon Clare
Vis, Dr Rudi


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Walley, Ms Joan


Singh, Marsha
Ward, Ms Claire


Skinner, Dennis
Wareing, Robert N


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
White, Brian


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Wicks, Malcolm


Smith, Miss Geraldine
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


(Morecambe & Lunesdale)
(Swansea W)


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Wills, Michael


Snape, Peter
Winnick, David


Soley, Clive
Woolas, Phil


Southworth, Ms Helen
Wray, James


Squire, Ms Rachel
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Steinberg, Gerry
Wyatt, Derek


Stewart, David (Inverness E)



Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Tellers for the Noes:


Stinchcombe, Paul
Mr. Mike Hall and


Stoate, Dr Howard
Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

Question accordingly negatived.

Lords amendment No. 19 agreed to [Special Entry].

Lords amendments Nos. 20 to 25 agreed to.

Clause 24

NATURE CONSERVATION AND HERITAGE PRESERVATION

Lords amendment: No. 26, in page 15, line 29, leave out ("the Nature Conservancy Council for England") and insert ("English Nature")

8 pm

Mr. Mullin: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 103, 106, 108 to 110, 139, 212, 214 and 237.

Mr. Mullin: The Nature Conservancy Council (England) was one of the three country councils established by the Environmental Protection Act 1990. They replaced the former Nature Conservancy Council, which exercised powers in relation to Great Britain. Since


the Nature Conservancy Council (England) came into existence in 1991, it has been known colloquially as English Nature.
The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) raised in Committee the question of English Nature's name. Government amendments introduced in another place respond to that and will formally change the name of the Nature Conservancy Council (England) to English Nature. They will also make the necessary consequential amendments elsewhere.

Mr. Green: I welcome the amendments. A peculiarity that struck many of us, led by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), in the early stages of our consideration was that the Bill did not accept the colloquialism whose use had grown up during the past nine years. The Nature Conservancy Council (England) is referred to as English Nature, so the amendments are entirely sensible and we welcome them.

Mr. David Heath: It falls to me to thank Ministers for listening to my arguments. My first work in this place, as an employee of the World Wide Fund for Nature, was on the Environmental Protection Act 1990. I have seen that element of the nomenclature of English Nature through from beginning to end. I am glad that the change is being introduced. It will make life a lot simpler for the organisation itself and for those who work with and for it.

Lords amendment agreed to.
Lords amendments Nos. 27 to 29 agreed to.

Clause 35

PROVISION OF ACCESS BY ACCESS AUTHORITY IN ABSENCE OF AGREEMENT

Lords amendment: No. 30, in page 21, line 21, after ("land") insert
(", or to other access land,")

Mr. Mullin: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 31, Lords amendment No. 32, amendment (a) thereto, and Lords amendments Nos. 33 and 129.

Mr. Mullin: This modest group of amendments was moved in another place and modifies the provisions relating to improving and securing public access to access land. For example, Lords amendment No. 30 clarifies the fact that access authorities may serve a notice of intention to carry out works relating to a means of access where it is needed to facilitate access to any access land. The Bill currently provides that such a notice may be served only to secure means of access to the access land in question.
Lords amendment No. 31 provides an additional ground of appeal for owners and occupiers against notices under clause 35(1) that a different means of access, such as a gate rather than a stile, should be provided.
Lords amendments Nos. 32 and 33 make consistent what public bodies may do under parts I and III in carrying out their legal responsibilities, and what provision should be made for compensation if they cause

damage. Lords amendment No. 33 reflects our agreement to address points raised by the Opposition in another place and our acceptance of the principle that, if damage is caused by a public body in carrying out its legal responsibility, a person suffering such damage should be entitled to compensation. It is phrased in similar terms to an amendment that we accepted in the House in relation to part III. Lords amendment No. 32 clarifies what an authorised person may do in exercising his or her powers under this part of the Bill. The provision is similar to clause 70(6).
Lords amendment No. 129 makes a minor modification to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Section 39(1) of that Act allows local planning authorities to enter into management agreements with landowners. Clause 72 will allow the countryside bodies to enter into such agreements and enable them to help protect open countryside, so ensuring the permanence of the right of access. The amendment allows section 39 agreements to be made in relation to any land, not just that in the countryside. It means, for example, that the Countryside Agency, in particular, can enter into such agreements to provide permanent protection for millennium greens in towns and villages.

Mr. Green: We welcome some of the changes, although the Minister set off some warning signals when he described them as minor. He was here yesterday, during our debate on the Bill's guillotine motion, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) made the salient point that whenever amendments are described as minor or technical or he is told that they will clean up legislation, his hackles rise and he instantly reads the legislation particularly carefully because he is sure that an imposition by the Executive is involved.
Heaven forfend that I should accuse the Minister of having unworthy motives in describing the amendments as technical. Amendment No. 32, to which we have tabled amendment (a), will give an agent of the authority the power to enter private land. The matter is therefore worthy of scrutiny by the House and, we believe, of improvement; that is the point of our amendment. Amendment No. 32 will give the agent of the authority the power not simply to enter the land, but to use a "vehicle" to do so, to take police with him, to take
equipment and materials needed for the purpose for which he is exercising the power of entry
and, finally, to
take samples of the land and of anything on it.
By any standards, those are draconian powers. Anyone who might be on the receiving end of them should feel that they were being exercised only with the degree of force absolutely necessary for the purpose for which the entry was made. That is why we have produced the brief but, I hope, helpful amendment (a), which would insert the word "relevant" in proposed new subsection (4A)(d). For an agent to be able to take samples of land—or of anything—under any circumstances involves extending what may be necessary powers, although the Minister chose not to explain the circumstances under which the powers would be exercised. Even so, the Bill would be improved if it was made clear that the only samples of land that could be taken away would be those relevant to the particular purpose.
Apart from the general consideration about giving people only the absolutely minimum powers necessary to enforce the law, a wider point is involved. The Minister will be aware that, throughout our debates, there has been a natural tension between landowners whose rights will be removed by the Bill and those who will benefit from it. Throughout the passage of the Bill, we have sought to avoid conflict. We have sought, by improving it in practical ways, to minimise any tension that could arise following its implementation. As the Minister will know, there have been sporadic outbreaks of class warfare among Labour Members who consider it moral and dutiful to cause pain to landowners. Conservative Members have tried to be much more inclusive, and to reconcile those involved in any conflicts.
A simple practicality is also involved, however. If we give too much power to those who trample over private land, resentment will build up and there will be a possibility of problems in the future. I hope that the Minister will explain what kind of warrant will be needed for the exercise of power of entry, and in what circumstances he envisages the exercise of that power.
As I said at the outset, I consider this to be a draconian power. Our amendment seeks to focus it much better, so that there can be no doubt that it is being exercised reasonably and sensibly.

Mr. Mullin: I am happy to reassure the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) that his concerns have already been dealt with. He is right to say that it is important for any samples taken to be relevant to the purpose. We have used the same wording as is used in part III, to which no objection has been made. I have no doubt that if the samples taken were not relevant to the functions for which an authorised person was exercising his power of entry, that would be unlawful. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is reassured by that.
The hon. Gentleman asked me why samples might be taken. They might be taken, for example, if it was necessary to check the status of grassland, in circumstances that we discussed earlier. I am advised, however, that an irrelevant sample would not be lawful in the first place. The hon. Gentleman's amendment is therefore unnecessary.

Mr. Green: It is not clear to me how the Bill can include words permitting behaviour that would be unlawful in another Bill. Can the Minister tell me which Bill would make taking irrelevant samples illegal?

Mr. Mullin: I cannot do so off the top of my head, but I am advised that samples taken that were not relevant to the functions for which an authorised person was exercising his power of entry would be unlawful—so, presumably, the answer is "this Bill".

Lords amendment agreed to.
Lords amendments Nos. 31 to 38 agreed to [some with Special Entry].

Clause 43

REDESIGNATION OF ROADS USED AS PUBLIC PATHS

Lords amendment: No. 39, in page 26, line 29, leave out subsection (3).

Mr. Meacher: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 40 to 70, 102 and 172 to 189.

Mr. Meacher: This group of amendments deals with provisions relating to restricted byways, definitive maps and the extinguishment of rights of way. Most are technical, or correct minor errors, and in view of the time I propose to deal only with the most substantive.
Lords amendments Nos. 48 to 56 relate to the powers in clause 48 enabling the Secretary of State to make regulations amending a wide range of primary and secondary legislation to take account of the creation of restricted byways as a new category of highway. Lords amendments Nos. 181 and 186 include measures to streamline the process of recording rights of way on definitive maps. Lords amendment No. 181 provides a regulation-making power for the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales to require local authorities to keep and make available to the public and other local authorities relevant documents about the status of rights of way.
I want to say something about Lords amendment No. 186, because the issue arose in Committee. The amendment is intended, inter alia, to filter out irrelevant objections to orders modifying definitive maps. Decisions on definitive map orders are a matter of fact and law: they do not call for judgments on whether, for example, the recording of a bridleway on a definitive map would cause environmental damage. However, schedule 15 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 requires the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales to hold a public inquiry or hearing into any opposed definitive map order, even if the only objections are objections that are not material to the decision on whether to confirm the order.
The amendment requires any objection or representation in respect of a definitive map modification order to include particulars of the grounds on which the objection or representation is made. It also empowers the Secretary of State or the Assembly to decline to hold an inquiry or hearing into an opposed order if either considers that the only objections or representations that have been made, and not withdrawn, are not relevant to a decision on whether to confirm an order. That, I think, closes a loophole identified in our lengthy discussions in Committee, and I hope it is acceptable.
The remaining amendments are technical.

Mr. Paice: I appreciate what the Minister has said, especially his remarks about the closing of the loophole. I merely wish to challenge him on Lords amendment No. 40. What does it actually mean? It would insert a subsection referring to a highway beside
a river, canal or other inland navigation.
It says that such a highway should not be excluded from the definition of a restricted byway
because the public have a right to use the highway for purposes of navigation.
It puzzles me how it would be possible to navigate a highway. I know that some people's driving might be construed as navigation, but the word clearly relates to



the use of a waterway, so the reference to using a highway for the purposes of navigation makes no sense. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain that.

Mr. Bennett: As I understand it, the Government originally intended to simplify the law on rights of way. I am not certain that they have managed to achieve that and still believe that a cut-off date for historic paths is wrong. However, they are committed to that approach and have said that they will provide extra resources to enable local authorities to carry out their work. How will that money be allocated to local authorities?
It should be borne in mind that some local authorities—perhaps because of earlier neglect in that regard—have more to do than others. In addition, various parts of the country have different problems. As president of the Ramblers Association—that is recorded in the Register of Members' Interests—I recently went to Suffolk on its behalf. It was concerned about a historical backlog and wanted to know what extra help the Government would provide to enable it to carry out its work. Is my right hon. Friend able to say how much money will be available and how it will be allocated?

Mr. David Heath: If there is one aspect of the Bill that has clearly not been thought through, it is the part that deals with rights of way. The fact that many amendments have been tabled to it suggests not only that it is technically incorrect but that it is something of a mess. I am disappointed that they do not deal with some of the issues that I had hoped would be raised.

Mr. Richard Livsey: The Minister will know that we discussed bridleways when I came to see him. There is an event in my constituency that attracts 500 people from all over the world, but they have been prevented from cycling on a bridleway for the past 12 years because of the Highways Act 1980. Such matters need sorting out.

Mr. Heath: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that observation because it is an example of what the Bill and the amendments do not address. There would have been no problem dealing with the cycle race that he mentioned. In addition, the amendments do not deal with the relationship between cycling and recreational riding, which should have been properly addressed, or with the carriage riders who do not have access to appropriate roads. Having made that cavil, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for listening to the argument about the difficulties of discounting irrelevant objections. Some objections, although relevant to the objector, are, in law, irrelevant and have to be passed to the Secretary of State. I hope that the relevant amendment will be accepted.

Mr. Meacher: In so far as I understand the question that the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) asked about amendment No. 40, I think the answer is that it ensures that highways with a right of towage are not excluded from the definition of a restricted byway. I believe that a similar provision in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Highways Act 1980 relates to other highways. I shall write to him if that is not correct.
As for the more substantive policy points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), I was not sure whether he wanted to

reignite the issue of the 25-year time limit. We believe that there is a fair balance between the desirability of giving certainty to landowners and ensuring that all evidence of historic rights—given the extra assistance that we have promised—should be made available within that time scale.
My hon. Friend asked about resources. We estimate that part II will cost local authorities a maximum of £19 million a year. The Department will cover that cost. The main element of local authority funding will be provided probably in 2002-03 to coincide with the implementation of most of the provisions in part II and in line with the so-called new burdens arrangements.
However, in recognition of the time limit on completing the historic record of rights of way, we are not waiting until 2002. Some £750,000 of the £3.5 million allocated to areas of outstanding natural beauty—access to which is to be channelled through the Countryside Agency next year—is to assist non-governmental organisations to research rights of way. Those are considerable sums. Local authorities are unlikely to face a significant increase in applications for such work during the next financial year. However, an extra £400,000 for recording rights of way has been included in the local authority settlement for England that was announced yesterday. As we have committed extra resources, I hope that my hon. Friend will be assured that we are implementing the provisions.

Mr. Bennett: I was trying to find out how far the allocation of the extra resources will take into account the needs of particular areas. Some areas might be in greater need of assistance, because of the poor state of their definitive maps, than areas that have almost completed their definitive maps.

Mr. Meacher: I am sorry if I misunderstood my hon. Friend. It is common sense that not all local authorities will need an equal allocation of resources. We need to take account of the areas where more resources are needed because much more work needs to be done. I could mention one or two local authorities for which that is the case. I assure him that the allocation will take account of the requirements of research and archival work, according to our best knowledge.

Lords amendment agreed to.
Lords amendments Nos. 40 to 70 agreed to.

Clause 54

APPLICATION FOR PATH CREATION ORDER FOR PURPOSES OF PART I

Lords amendment: No. 71, in page 33, line 38, leave out from ("any") to end of line 39 and insert
("local highway authority whose area includes land over which the proposed footpath or bridleway would be created.")

Mr. Mullin: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 72, 190 to 211, 213 and 215 to 233.

Mr. Mullin: The group of amendments deals with provisions relating to the creation, extinguishment and
diversion of rights of way. At the risk of arousing the suspicions of Opposition Members, I have to say that the amendments are for the most part technical, or for the correction of minor errors. I have several pages of explanation, which I am happy to read to the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green), but if he is satisfied and will accept my word about the technical nature of the amendments, I shall desist. Otherwise, the time threat will hang over the debate.

Mr. Green: The Minister's invitation is irresistible, but I will relieve him of any question in his mind that I do not believe him when he says that the amendments are technical. 1 am, however, puzzled by one of the technicalities. Amendment No. 72 is:
in clause 55, page 34, leave out line 27.
We are talking about stopping up and diversion. Line 27 as it currently exists in the Bill says that
`highway' includes part of a highway.
On the surface, that seems a sensible provision as, clearly, one would not necessarily wish to stop up or to divert an entire highway. One can easily envisage circumstances in which it would be useful to divert part of a highway. I am therefore puzzled as to why the Government have chosen to leave out the provision.
I thought that rescue might be arriving for the Minister. Sadly, it is not, so I shall keep questioning why the amendment should have been tabled. As I say, on the surface, it seems to make life too inflexible for the implementation of that part of the legislation. I should be grateful if the Minister would reply on that amendment.

Mr. Mullin: It may be that help will not arrive in time. In the event that it does not, I shall undertake to provide the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) with a written explanation of his query. If that is not acceptable, I will be happy to read out the three pages I have in front of me. [interruption.] Here comes some help. The provision is replaced in a new interpretation clause at the end of part II. I hope that that makes as much sense to the hon. Gentleman as it makes to me.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 72 agreed to.

Clause 56

RIGHTS OF WAY IMPROVEMENT PLANS

Lords amendment: No. 73, in page 34, line 43, leave out ("which local rights of way provide") and insert
("provided by local rights of way (and in particular by those within paragraph (a) of the definition in subsection (5))")

Mr. Mullin: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 74 to 79 and 100.

Mr. Mullin: This group of Lords amendments relates to the rights of way improvement plans which the Bill requires local highway authorities to prepare and to

publish. Lords amendment No. 73 places additional emphasis on the recreational opportunities provided by footpaths, cycle tracks, bridleways and restricted byways in the context of local authorities' assessment of the opportunities for open-air recreation provided by local rights of way.
Lords amendment No. 74 provides that, when local highway authorities are assessing the opportunities provided by local rights of way for open-air recreation, particular emphasis should be given to exercise. Lords amendments Nos. 75 and 76 bring cycle tracks, other than those which form part of, or run alongside, a made-up carriageway, within the ambit of rights of way improvement plans.
Lords amendment No. 78 requires local highway authorities, when preparing their rights of way improvement plans, to consult the local access forums whose establishment is proposed under Lords amendment No. 127.
Lords amendment No. 100 relates to clause 64, which currently requires local authorities to have regard to the needs of people with mobility problems when authorising the erection of stiles, gates and other stockproof barriers on footpaths and bridleways under section 147 of the Highways Act 1980. Section 147 is concerned solely with approvals for the erection of new structures. Lords amendment No. 100 enables the authorities which at present have the power to authorise new stockproof structures to enter into agreements with owners or occupiers to alter or to replace existing structures to make them safer or more convenient for people with mobility problems.

Mr. David Heath: I welcome the gist of the amendments, especially the last one, whose genesis lies in discussions we had in Committee about ways to improve access to rights of way for people with mobility problems.
How does the Minister construe the amendment that makes a distinction between exercise and other forms of open-air recreation? How does adding the words
exercise and other forms of
assist our understanding of the purpose of the improvement plans? If it means that the plans will make a significant effort to improve the network of bridleways for recreational riding and available rights of way for carriage driving, so allowing cycling and riding to co-exist, I wholeheartedly welcome it. However, if there is another meaning, I ask the Minister to tell the House what it is, so that we can arrive at a view.

Mr. Mullin: As I said, Lords amendment No. 74 provides that when local highway authorities are assessing the opportunities provided by local rights of way for open-air recreation, particular emphasis should be given to exercise. I think that that means exactly what it says—healthy outdoor activity.

Mr. Heath: Is the Minister saying that open-air recreation can be something other than exercise for the purposes of using a right of way, or can exercise be something other than open-air recreation? Perhaps the distinction should not detain the House at this time of night, but I merely want to understand the meaning of the amendment, and interpretation has so far been lacking.

Mr. Mullin: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I think we will have to follow the matter up later. He is pursuing me down all sorts of alleyways where I am not currently equipped to travel. May I get back to him at an appropriate moment?

Mr. Heath: indicated assent.

Mr. Mullin: The hon. Gentleman generously accepts. I am grateful.

Lords amendment agreed to.
Lords amendments Nos. 74 to 79 agreed to.

Clause 59

ENFORCEMENT OF DUTY TO PREVENT OBSTRUCTION

Lords amendment: No. 80, in page 37, leave out lines 26 to 31 and insert—

("(a) it is or forms part of—

(i) a building (whether temporary or permanent) or works for the construction of a building, or
(ii) any other structure (including a tent, caravan, vehicle or other temporary or movable structure) which is designed, adapted or used for human habitation,")

Mr. Meacher: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 81 to 98, 101, and 234 to 236.

Mr. Meacher: Because of the time, I shall speak only briefly, and to the more important amendments.
Lords amendments Nos. 80 to 95 relate to clause 59, which enables a person to trigger action by a local highway authority to remove obstructions from rights of way, if necessary by seeking an order from the magistrates court. Buildings or structures are excluded from clause 59. Lords amendments Nos. 80 and 92 make clear which buildings or structures are excluded and remove the rather extraordinary possibility that someone might block a right of way with an empty vehicle, not designed as a dwelling, and argue that it could conceivably be lived in and was therefore exempt from the provisions. I am sure that the whole House is delighted to learn that that is now preventable.
Lords amendments Nos. 82 to 91 and 93 to 95 give a person who is responsible for the obstruction, including its owner, a right to give evidence to the court on those matters on which it must be satisfied before it can make an order. The aim is to ensure that the court is provided with as much relevant information as possible when deciding whether to make an order. The Lords amendments also give the person responsible for the obstruction a right to appeal to the Crown court against a decision of the magistrates court. Of course, the complainant and the highway authority already have such a right.
I shall briefly deal with Lords amendment No. 234, as it relates to the Grimsell lane case, which was of interest in Committee. Lords amendment No. 234 relates to section 34 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, which is amended by schedule 7 to the Bill. Among other things, schedule 7 extends to restricted byways the current

offence of driving a motor vehicle without lawful authority on a footpath or bridleway. For the purposes of prosecutions under section 34, a new subsection (2) creates a presumption that a way shown on a definitive map as a footpath, bridleway, or restricted byway is to be treated as such a way unless a defendant produces evidence to the contrary.
Lords amendment No. 234 also raises the evidential burden from a prima facie one to one of the balance of probabilities, which is the same level as that required to secure a modification to the definitive map. That is the highest evidential burden placed on a defendant in criminal proceedings.
The effect of Lords amendment No. 236 is to make it an offence, in certain circumstances, to drive on a way shown as a footpath, bridleway or restricted byway, regardless of whether it carries full public vehicular rights of way. It inserts a new section 34A into the Road Traffic Act 1988 requiring a defendant, in addition to proving the existence of full vehicular rights of way, to show that it was reasonably necessary to drive the vehicle to gain access to land in which he has an interest or on which he is a visitor but not a trespasser, or that it was reasonably necessary for him to drive the vehicle for the purposes of any business, trade or profession.
The amendments deal with a vexed issue that has concerned both the courts and the Committee, and I hope that the issue is now satisfactorily addressed.

Mr. Green: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of the amendments and for mentioning our lengthy debates on the Grimsell lane case. This is an opportune moment to pay tribute to one of the groups that has provided so much information for our debates, GLEAM—the green lanes environmental action movement—which is quite rightly concerned with the preservation of green lanes. I declare an interest as a GLEAM member.
The measures that the Minister has described sound adequate. However, the right hon. Gentleman will be aware that GLEAM itself has said that, although progress was made in the Bill's early stages, it was not at all convinced that sufficient progress had been made in protecting green lanes from inappropriate vehicular use. We shall have to see how the legislation pans out in practice. Although I am aware that the Minister has, as he just said, strengthened many of the provisions, I suspect that, at this stage, we can only hope that enough has been done and that we will not have to revisit the issue in future legislation.
The Minister also said that the legislation does not permit someone to park an empty vehicle across a right of way and thereby claim that there is a building obstructing the way. One wonders what would happen if someone parked a caravan in such a location and lived in it very occasionally. Would that constitute a building under the legislation? Could the legislation be obstructed by that particular ruse?

Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman has asked a very interesting question, to which I am not sure of the answer. I should have thought that, because a caravan is mobile, that would not constitute entitlement to exemption from the provisions. However, although that is my opinion of
what would make common sense, the law is never quite the same as common sense. If I am incorrect in that opinion, I shall let the hon. Gentleman know by letter.

Lords amendment agreed to.
Lords amendments Nos. 81 to 98 agreed to.

Before Clause 64

Lords amendment: No. 99, to insert the following new clause—Vehicular access across common land etc—

"—(1) This section applies to a way which the owner or occupier (from time to time) of any premises has used as a means of access for vehicles to the premises, if that use of the way—

(a) was an offence under an enactment applying to the land crossed by the way, but
(b) would otherwise have been sufficient to create on or after the prescribed date, and to keep in existence, an easement giving a right of way for vehicles.

(2) Regulations may provide, as respects a way to which this section applies, for the creation in accordance with the regulations, on the application of the owner of the premises concerned and on compliance by him with prescribed requirements, of an easement subsisting at law for the benefit of the premises and giving a right of way for vehicles over that way.

(3) An easement created in accordance with the regulations is subject to any enactment or rule of law which would apply to such an easement granted by the owner of the land.

(4) The regulations may in particular—

(a) require that, where an application is made after the relevant use of the way has ceased, it is to be made within a specified time,
(b) specify grounds on which objections may be made and the procedure to apply to the making of objections,
(c) require any matter to be referred to and determined by the Lands Tribunal, and make provision as to procedure and costs,
(d) make provision as to the payment of any amount by the owner of the premises concerned to any person or into court and as to the time when any payment is to be made,
(e) provide for the determination of any such amount,
(f) make provision as to the date on which any easement is created,
(g) specify any limitation to which the easement is subject,
(h) provide for the easement to include any specified right incidental to the right of way,
(i) make different provision for different circumstances.

(5) In this section—
"enactment" includes an enactment in a local or private Act and a byelaw, regulation or other provision having effect under an enactment;

"owner", in relation to any premises, means—

(a) a person, other than a mortgagee not in possession, who is for the time being entitled to dispose of the fee simple of the premises, whether in possession or in reversion, or
(b) a tenant under a long lease, within the meaning of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987;

"prescribed" means prescribed by regulations;
"regulations" means regulations made, as respects England, by the Secretary of State and, as respects Wales, by the National Assembly for Wales.

(6) Regulations under this section shall be made by statutory instrument, and no such regulations shall be made by the Secretary of State unless a draft has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament."

Sir George Young: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to take the following: amendments (a) to (c) and consequential amendment (d), and Lords amendment No. 132.

Sir George Young: I support Lords amendment No. 99, but I believe that the legislative landscape would also be enhanced by the planting of amendments (a) and (c). When we debated this matter on 14 June, I described the plight of my constituents in Newtown common, who suddenly found that the common had changed hands and that the new owner was seeking to charge them between 6 and 10 per cent. of the value of their homes—tens of thousands of pounds—for the privilege of driving a few yards from the main road to their front doors across common land, which they had been crossing for nothing from time immemorial.
Both Government and Opposition Members spoke in favour of the amendments that I had tabled, because the problem goes far wider than Newtown common. People who had done all the necessary searches when they bought their homes were confronted with unexpected, and in my view unjustified, bills. At the end of that debate, the Minister was clearly moved by what he had heard. He used language even stronger than the language that I had used. He spoke without restraint, and the words "outrageous", "spivvery" and "blackmail" crossed his lips—and, indeed, appeared in Hansard at column 975.
The Minister then looked down at his script, prepared for him by his civil servants, and discovered to his dismay that he was briefed to resist the amendments that would have ended the outrage that he had condemned. He told us that none of the options was straightforward and said:
If I could think of a solution to it now, I would offer it.—[Official Report, 14 June 2000; Vol. 351, c. 978.]
He then invited the people's party to vote for this indefensible feudal practice, which it did.
Happily, the injustice has been put right in another place, thanks to my noble Friend the Earl of Selborne. The Labour party may find it odd that two old Etonians, one an hereditary baronet and the other an hereditary earl, have had to do battle with the Labour Government on behalf of those living in the old cottages off Newtown common, to defend them against its rapacious owner. Life is full of paradoxes.
In fairness to the Minister, I must say that he has played a key part in finding a solution, for which I thank him. He patiently listened to a delegation that I brought to his office and he gave me encouragement at crucial stages.
On 2 October, the Government began consultations on a solution that would have capped at 4 per cent. the charges that people had to pay to drive over common land. After the consultations ended—I commend the Newtown Residents Association for its representations—the Government made further welcome concessions, and on


3 November they proposed that post-1930 houses would attract a charge of 3 per cent. and pre-1930 houses 1 per cent. Those are welcome steps in the right direction.
I tabled amendments (a) and (c) to tidy up two loose ends. I am no longer pressing the proposal to defer the payment of the charges until the property next changes hands, nor am I seeking further to lower the percentage, but I must press the Government on the date by which the regulations under Lords amendment No. 99 are to be introduced.
Without the regulations there is no protection, and people will find it difficult to sell their houses until the problem is sorted out, because the purchasers will not want the uncertainty. Amendment (c) gives the Government six months in which to make the regulations. We must maintain the momentum and not let the issue run into the sand. I hope that the Minister will give us some comfort on the crucial question of the timetable.
Amendment (a) would require specific provision to be made for those living in pre-1906 houses. My noble Friend Lord Selborne made the case well in his speech last Thursday. In my view, those with pre-1906 houses will have acquired a prescriptive right to drive back and forth before 1926, when the law changed—but I am not a lawyer, and there may be some doubt about the matter.
Ideally, those with the older houses should have their position made clear in the regulations by its being made explicit that nothing is payable. The clarity of everyone else's position, thanks to the Lords amendment, now contrasts with the lack of clarity about the pre-1906 houses.
There is another matter that the Minister in another place said that he would consider sympathetically: the length of time that people have before they serve a notice on the common owner. Six months may be all right for the 1 per cent. and 3 per cent. people, but those who believe that they may have to pay nothing may need a little longer to resolve the uncertainty.
If the Minister can say something helpful about the amendments, we may be able to move on and make progress with the remaining stages of the Bill.

Mr. John Maples: I support the amendments. Yarningdale common, in the village of Claverdon in my constituency, is owned by the parish council. The Minister has been helpful with regard to the problem there, and I hope that it can be resolved by means of local government legislation, as he has suggested.
I did not expect that a clause and draft regulations would be available by this time to deal with the difficulties that my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) described, and I am grateful to the Minister on behalf of about 26 of my constituents. They are quite seriously affected and are being held to ransom by the parish council. Sums of up to £30,000 have been demanded from some of them, although some settlements have been lower.
I have a few small questions about the draft regulations, about which I hope that there will be further consultation. What is the timing for the regulations? I do not see why we should have to wait six months for their introduction, given that they already exist in draft form. Amendment (b) would change the period to three months, and I hope that the Minister will say why that is not appropriate.
I am also worried about the requirement that applications be made within six months. That should be relaxed slightly, especially, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire noted, in the case of houses built before 1906. They belong to a different category. At least 25 of the 27-odd houses on Yarningdale common were built in the 1880s. They were sold by the then lord of the manor to their tenants in 1885 or 1886. It is difficult to see how the new owners could not have acquired a prescriptive right by the time that the Law of Property Act 1925 came into effect.
Those people would have had nearly 40 years of adverse possession by the time the 1925 Act came into effect, but that is, of course, impossible to prove now. Many of the properties have been through four, five, six or more owners since then. Those changes of ownership limit the potential for gathering the necessary evidence, and a person would have to be more than 100 years old to be able to give first-hand evidence.
Although it is almost impossible for the people involved to prove that they acquired the prescriptive right of way, it is also almost impossible to argue that they did not. For that reason, I believe that a special category should be drawn up to cover pre-1906 houses. It is difficult to imagine that their owners should have to pay anything in relation to the value of the property. I suggest to the Minister that perhaps they should pay some administrative fee instead. They should certainly be expected to cover legal expenses, and perhaps to pay something to the landlord for his time and trouble. Basically, however, those people should be able to get their title confirmed and acquire a rectifying deed for nothing.
My final point has to do with a reference in the draft regulations to land where the number and use of buildings and land served by the access is materially unchanged. Most of the properties around Yarningdale common are well over 100 years old, and change has probably taken place there—for example, a barn may have been converted into a house in a place where previously there was only one dwelling.
In many cases, too, houses may have been rebuilt. Although a house may have one access to a piece of land, there might originally have been a cottage built in the early 19th century that was knocked down and rebuilt. The same provisions should apply in those circumstances, because in the context of the Law of Property Act 1925, the time for which the right of access has been used will depend on when the original house was built, not on when it was rebuilt.
I hope that the Minister can deal with those points. I hope, too, that the regulations can be brought into effect as soon as possible, and that we can consult on them in advance. That will probably represent our only opportunity to deal with the problems that have arisen, so we must ensure that the regulations cover all eventualities.
I end by thanking the Minister again for his extremely constructive and open approach to the matter.

Mr. David Heath: I echo what has been said by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) and the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples). This is a welcome move on the part of the Government to deal with a long-standing problem. A great deal of effort has been put into finding
an appropriate solution. The right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman both talked about the early introduction of the regulations, and I support their view that an early introduction is to be desired.
I am also concerned about the tiered structure of compensation, which will be a matter for further discussion when the regulations are introduced. There is an argument that 3 per cent. for a post-war house—although modest in comparison with what might otherwise have been levied—may still represent a substantial amount for a householder to find. Perhaps 2 per cent. might be more appropriate. However, now is not the time to debate that in detail. Now is the time to welcome what the Government have done, and to support the inclusion of the provision in the Bill.

Mr. David Prior: I, too, thank the Under-Secretary of State for what he has done to bring about the amendment. I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) for all the work that he has put into this matter. The regulations are not ideal and give the Minister enormous discretion, allowing him to make different provision for different circumstances. However, given the complexity of the status of common land and vehicular access over it, that is perhaps not surprising.
I do not understand the difference between the 1 per cent. compensation for properties built before 1930 and the 3 per cent. for properties built thereafter. Three per cent. is still a big figure; it is a windfall to the owner of the access and a liability that the property owners had no idea they had. Could that 3 per cent. be reduced—perhaps to 2 per cent.? Also, could part of the consideration we are talking about be set aside to help pay for the upkeep of access roads across common land?
Reference has been made to when the regulations will come in, and it is extremely important that they come in as soon as possible. A number of my constituents in West Runton are considering selling their properties, while other people are considering buying and taking out a mortgage. They all find that their transactions are effectively frozen for the time being.
We have discussed the definition of property. The regulations do not address that problem, although it was addressed in another place. It is important that it is made explicit that "property" includes agricultural land, market gardens and other similar properties. We have heard today about deferring payment, and I hope that it will be deferred until the property is sold. It is often only at that point that the owner has ready cash to make the payment. There has also been talk of making payments by instalment. Given that in some cases payment will be being made for the first time for hundreds of years, I do not see why the owner of the access way cannot wait until the property is sold.
Finally, it would be helpful for the Minister to confirm that those who had access to property prior to 1906 acquired a prescriptive right thereby. When we are looking at records that go back through the mists of time—perhaps over 200 years—it is important to know exactly where access paths of right went; often these would be cart tracks to farms. It may not be easy to

establish where the prescriptive right exists, but it would be helpful if the Minister could confirm that there is such a right.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: I, too, welcome the fact that the Minister has taken on board, appreciated and acted on the representations made when this matter was last debated. Lords amendment No. 99, to be inserted before clause 64, goes a long way to meeting all the points that I raised on the previous occasion.
9 pm
I should simply like to endorse two important points. The first is about properties built before 1906. I do not believe, and I do not believe that the Minister believes, that people should get something for nothing, yet that is what will happen if some percentage is levied to grant the easement. It should be able to be granted simply on payment of the legal fees. Under the Law of Property Act 1925 and its associated legislation, Parliament, quite intentionally, deprived people of an existing right. It is for us to put that wrong right today.
I hope that the Minister can provide reassurance that for properties built before 1906, no charge will be levied. That would be justice in a situation that has been riddled with gross injustice. Some landlords, particularly in Gerrards Cross in my constituency, have effectively sought to blackmail the owners of properties, many of which predate 1906.
Secondly, may I urge speed on the Minister? This problem has caused a lot of real hardship. Some of the people who occupy such properties are not wealthy. They may have a capital asset, but that does not mean that they have ready cash. Some cannot sell their property because of the difficulties of obtaining the easement. I very much hope that it will not be long before the legislation is introduced and the regulations made.
I repeat my thanks to the Minister for having listened to and acted on the representations that many right hon. and hon. Members have made on this matter.

Mr. Richard Page: I echo the words of my hon. Friends the Members for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior) and for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) in thanking the Minister for listening to our pleas and for coming forward with this solution.
I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young). He is the general in this campaign and has argued the case with great dexterity. I am but a mere spear carrier who has supported his army in this debate. I know that my constituents who had lived in sweet innocence in Chorleywood common for a number of years until this bombshell burst on them are grateful for the reduction that has been obtained.
My parish council is also grateful for what has happened. Its members found themselves in the difficult position of having to charge inflated and increased prices, to the detriment of people in Chorleywood common. I know that they are glad that a much more reasonable figure can be charged. A number of people feel that even the figures involved now are too high. Nevertheless, compared with what the percentage was, and what it could have been, they are much better.
On my right hon. Friend's amendment (c), which I support, I put it to the Government—again in the sweet innocence that characterises my approach to life—that if they are prepared to offer three months for consideration of a change in the air traffic control regulations and rules, the proposed period of six months is positively generous. I am sure that the Minister will have no difficulty in accepting the amendment.

Mr. Eric Forth: I, too, join my hon. Friends in thanking my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) for the work that he has done in this matter and for bringing us to this stage. In doing so, I support his amendment (c) which would provide for a six-month period. That is not only more realistic but would probably give the optimum opportunity for proper consultation. Frankly, it would be better to give right hon. and hon. Members and those with a legitimate interest the opportunity for further discussions with the Minister and his Department to ensure that we get this matter right than to rush at it. I thus prefer a six-month time scale to one of three months.
I am slightly—in fact, more than slightly—worried about the percentages that have been bandied about. Is a uniform percentage appropriate, given the enormous variation in property values up and down the country? It might not be untypical for a property in Chislehurst in my constituency to be worth —400,000 or —500,000. If one applies a 3 per cent. rate to such a property value, people in their later years, who are on fixed incomes, have already made proper provision for their retirement and thought that they could look forward to a comfortable if modest existence, could suddenly find themselves facing rather unexpected hardship. Most people looking at the setting and the houses involved might find that rather difficult to believe, but such circumstances have been brought about by means completely outside the owners' control. Not just the percentage rate but the very variable effect of its application across the country requires careful consideration.
I join others who believe that the Government have been prepared to look sympathetically at the issue. The Minister has played his part. I hope that, having reached this stage, we can make progress and find a resolution that, as far as possible in such circumstances, balances all interests involved.

Mr. Green: I add my thanks to those of others, both to the Minister for the way in which the Government have shown a degree of flexibility, and particularly to my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), who has indeed marshalled his troops with skill and aplomb, as one would expect.
There is still a point at issue about the appropriate period before the Government implement the regulations. As has been said, the draft regulations are now out for consultation. So, on the surface, a three-month period seems preferable to a six-month period. If, however, the Minister gave some cogent reasons why a six-month period would be preferable, we would of course listen to him.
The underlying point that must be made is that some end must be included in the provision. Clearly, the many people who are affected by the matter will want to know how long the uncertainty will last. As has been said, many

of them will be elderly people. Therefore, such uncertainty stretching for months and years will cause them particular distress.
To some extent, the issue of whether the period lasts for three or six months is secondary, but the matter of urgency is clearly a first-order issue. Since the Government have so far acted so constructively, under the influence of the persuasive arguments of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I urge them to take that final step to reassure people about when the new rules will be implemented.

Mr. Mullin: It gives me particular pleasure to agree with the Lords amendments and to respond to Opposition amendments. From the moment the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) raised the subject with me, I was alive to the iniquity of the situation. As he will recall, I attempted, by meeting those involved in his constituency case, to reach a solution to the problem as it then stood. I am particularly pleased that it has now proved possible, as a result of the right hon. Gentleman's assiduous and skilful campaigning, to amend the law to ensure that the circumstances with which his constituent and others were faced cannot be repeated. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the way he has conducted his campaign.
The purpose of Lords amendment No. 99 is to protect property owners who have been driving across common or similar land for many years, and who are now faced with having to pay an excessive fee to the landowner for acquiring the right to do so. I think that the right hon. Gentleman accepts that we are not talking only about cases such as the one in Newtown, in which someone was in business to make a lot of money as quickly as possible. That is not the only circumstance. Local authorities and the National Trust also manage commons, and they have some rights that must be considered. Therefore, we have tried to arrive at a solution that is fair to everyone. In other cases, the sort of problem that arose in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency has never arisen.
The solution that we are considering—this is why it is not possible entirely to write off the charge—has to take into account the interests of those commons that have been properly managed and about which there is no particular complaint. The Lords amendment gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations that will contain the details of the scheme. The main elements of the scheme will include establishing that the access way has been used in such a manner and for such a time that the prescriptive right of access through long use would have been acquired, a limit on the amount of compensation that the property owner has to pay the landowner, and comprehensive dispute resolution procedures.
I am glad to say that there is welcome agreement on both sides of the House about the need to provide such protection, although there is some dispute about the details. We shall return to the details in subsequent debates on the regulations, so this is not the final say on the matter. There is still scope to affect the drafting of the regulations. They have yet to be drafted, and they will require consultation with all the affected parties. As the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) said, it will be necessary to draft the regulations carefully. We want to get the matter right, and once we have done so, I hope it will no longer be a source of grievance for the constituents of the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire and others.
Lords amendment No. 132 clarifies the definition of "town or village green" contained in the Commons Registration Act 1965 and provides for regulations to be made that will clarify when the applications for registration have to be made. I repeat that the Government will consult widely on the content of the regulations.
I shall try to respond to some of the points raised. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said that 3 per cent. was too high. That is something that we can consider when the regulations are drafted, but we are trying to reach a fair balance between the parties and take into account the interests of those commons where there is no dispute and the National Trust or local authority has a perfectly acceptable relationship with the people who live around the common. The upkeep of access roads was also mentioned. We can certainly consider that as part of the regulations, which will be subject to the affirmative procedure so that there will be an opportunity to discuss the matter in more detail.
The hon. Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior) mentioned the definition of a property. The Bill uses the word "premises", which relates to buildings, land, and land and buildings. The possibility of deferring payments can also be considered in drafting the regulations. As for older houses, for which the right has existed for longer, property owners have to provide evidence of prescriptive rights. I appreciate that it is difficult and that we are talking about houses that may be 100 or more years old. I am advised that to change the situation would be at odds with the laws on prescription and would put a small number of property owners in a very advantageous position. I appreciate that the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire will wish to return to that point, but I hope that I have said enough to show that there is plenty of time to get the matter right and deal with each of the issues that hon. Members have raised.
On the question of timing, as I said, we shall have to consult first. The regulations do not exist yet; this is new territory. I share the desire expressed by all hon. Members that they should be dealt with as speedily as possible, and I can give an assurance that we shall do so. In view of their kind remarks about my approach to the problem, I hope they will accept that that assurance can be taken seriously.

Sir George Young: Is it possible for the Minister to say that by the end of June 2001, for example, he expects the regulations to have been made? Is that a target with which he could identify himself?

Mr. Mullin: I do not want to get trapped into giving any specific target date, but I would be extremely disappointed if we had not sorted out the matter by then. On the basis of those sentiments, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not press his amendment.

Lords amendment agreed to.
Lords amendments Nos. 100 to 103 agreed to [Some with Special Entry].

Before Clause 66

Lords amendment: No. 104, to insert the following new clause—Conservation of biological diversity—
—(1) It is the duty of— 
(a) any Minister of the Crown (within the meaning of the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975),

(b) any Government department, and
(c) the National Assembly for Wales,

in carrying out his or its functions, to have regard, so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions, to the purpose of conserving biological diversity in accordance with the Convention.

(2) The Secretary of State, as respects England, and the National Assembly for Wales, as respects Wales, shall each publish a list of, or lists which together comprise, the living organisms and types of habitat which in the opinion of the Secretary of State or the Assembly (as the case may be) are of principal importance for the purpose mentioned in subsection (1).

(3) Without prejudice to subsection (1), it is the duty of a listing authority to take, or to promote the taking by others of, such steps as appear to the authority to be reasonably practicable to further the conservation of the living organisms and types of habitat included in any list published by the authority under this section.

(4) Before publishing the list or lists required by subsection (2) the listing authority shall consult the appropriate conservation body as to the living organisms or types of habitat to be included in the list or lists.

(5) Each listing authority shall, in consultation with the appropriate conservation body—

(a) keep under review any list published by the authority under this section,
(b) make such revisions of any such list as appear to the authority to be appropriate, and
(c) publish any list so revised.

(6) A duty under this section to publish a list is a duty to publish it in such manner as the listing authority thinks fit.

(7) In this section—
"appropriate conservation body" means—

(a) as respects England, English Nature,
(b) as respects Wales, the Countryside Council for Wales;

"biological diversity" has the same meaning as in the Convention;
"conservation" in relation to a living organism or type of habitat, includes the restoration or enhancement of a population or habitat;
"the Convention" means the United Nations Environmental Programme Convention on Biological Diversity of 1992;
"habitat" has the same meaning as in the Convention; "listing authority"—

(a) in relation to a list which the Secretary of State is required to publish under this section, means the Secretary of State;
(b) in relation to a list which the National Assembly for Wales is required to publish under this section, means the National Assembly for Wales.")

Mr. Meacher: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is one of those happy occasions when there is a concurrence of views among all parties on the subject of biodiversity. The Lords amendment responds to the concerns expressed in the Standing Committee of this


House and repeated in the Lords and by the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs in the interim report on its investigation into UK biodiversity. There was very strong support for statutory underpinning for the conservation of biodiversity outside designated sites.
The Government are committed to the conservation of biological diversity wherever it occurs. We tabled Lords amendment No. 104 to give new duties to Government Departments and the National Assembly for Wales to have regard to the purpose of biodiversity conservation, in accordance with the convention on biological diversity.
The Lords amendment also requires the Secretary of State and the Assembly to maintain lists of living organisms and habitat types of principal importance for the conservation of biodiversity, and to take steps, and promote others to take steps, to further their conservation. The amendment provides a comprehensive and effective statutory basis for the current partnership approach to the biodiversity action plan, while allowing flexibility for the future. It also encourages the integration of biodiversity conservation into policy across the Government, which is a central element of the convention's provisions.
I thank all those who have been involved in discussion of the issue. I believe that the resolution will be satisfactory to all parties.

Mr. Green: I concur with the Minister that, through all the stages of the Bill, many of us on the Conservative Benches and on other Benches have demanded statutory backing for biodiversity action plans to be part of the Bill.
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we have argued all along that there are good and bad parts in the Bill, and that its main use will be in improving the protection of wildlife in Britain. That is why we were so much in favour of this measure, and we are delighted that the new clause will appear in the Bill.
Pursuing the line of thought that there are good and bad parts in the Bill, I am sure that the irony will not be lost on the Minister and his colleagues on the Labour Benches that all the good parts were introduced or significantly enhanced in another place. If the Bill had only gone through another place and never touched this House, it would be the ideal wildlife protection Bill.
However, we have what we have before us, and it would be churlish not to welcome the parts in which the Government have taken steps forward, as we requested. I expect that the clause will make a substantial long-term beneficial difference to the preservation and enhancement of wildlife of all kinds in this country, so we welcome it.

Mr. David Heath: I suspect that it is slightly spurious logic to suggest that amendments introducing improvements to the Bill have come about entirely because of what happened at the other end of the building, rather than because of a delayed reaction to arguments advanced in Committee and in the Chamber. However, I welcome what the Government have done in this instance. It is an extremely significant move on their part. The argument was advanced in Committee that there should be statutory underpinning of a biodiversity action plan.
The Government have gone further than that by enshrining the convention on biological diversity in law. That is to be welcomed. It will give a tremendous boost to conservation outside protected sites. It will encourage species recovery programmes and habitat restoration schemes. Congratulations go to the Government on doing what was essential if the Bill was to meet its conservation objectives.

Mr. Llwyd: I add my congratulations to the Government on this important part of the Bill; it was the subject of considerable debate in Committee. I differ from what the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) said. I am not sure that those in another place were able to get things entirely right. There were some pretty good and persuasive arguments advanced by Opposition Members in Committee. I know that the hon. Gentleman might have been jocular; I too am not without a sense of humour.
It is patently obvious that there is a need for what has been done. In Wales, for example, there are 222 species and habitat action plan areas that are relevant. In other words, there are 222 species and habitats in Wales that are currently endangered. The Countryside Council for Wales is the leading body in the UK on biodiversity, and its contribution is important. I am not sure to whom I am pleading, but that body, like other similar bodies, says that it is extremely underfunded. At present, it is able to work on only 120 of the 222 action plans. Knowing the Minister's sincerity and his interest in these matters, I am sure that I have made the point sufficiently clearly.
I am extremely pleased that the Government have seen fit to introduce proper statutory underpinning. I pay tribute to some of the bodies that lobbied during our earlier consideration of the Bill, particularly the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, which was persuasive in its support and the definite need that it saw for the underpinning of the biodiversity action plan. I am pleased that the Government agree with the amendment, having agreed with the other place.
Clause 74 goes slightly further than the RSPB agenda in that, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said, it enshrines the convention on biological diversity which was signed at the Rio summit in 1992. It is a substantial breakthrough for the conservation of wildlife outside protected sites. It must be a much needed boost to the implementation of species recovery programmes.

Mr. Forth: I have been in this business long enough to know that one is entitled to a modest degree of suspicion when there is unanimity and mutual self-congratulation, especially among politicians. The present situation is a good example of that. I am made even more suspicious when I see that everything started with something that glories in the name of the United Nations environmental programme convention on biological diversity of 1992.
I can imagine that a well-meaning group of politicians probably got together in an exotic location, and in a spirit of mutual self-congratulation signed up to something that they thought was rather wonderful. They probably trumpeted what had happened on their return, as
politicians are wont to do, and then left others to pick up the pieces and pay the bills. I want to pursue that theme for a few moments.

Mr. Green: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be pleased to know that one of the leading politicians who negotiated the treaty in the exotic location of Rio was our right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean).

Mr. Forth: That makes me even more suspicious. Anything that could have persuaded my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) to go as far as he did must have been pretty significant. No wonder my right hon. Friend is not here—which is unusual for him. He would probably be ashamed to account for the result, which I shall now examine in some detail.
It is all very well for well-meaning politicians, including my right hon. Friend, to go off and then return in triumph waving a piece of paper and saying, "Biological diversity in our time." However, the reality of that becomes plain years later when we look in detail at what is required to give effect to the well-meaning aspirations of the politicians who gathered on the occasion in question. In a different context, we have just seen our beloved Deputy Prime Minister try to pick up the pieces of another great moment in international environmental history. To use his own term, he returned "gutted" from an unfortunate disagreement with someone with whom he was supposed to be enjoying an ever closer union. We had better not go into that too closely, but Members will know what I mean.
We are now looking at the detailed provisions that will bring the aspirational convention of 1992 into effect. The reality is that Lords amendment No. 104 starts to put the details of the convention in place, and we hope that it will give effect to its aspirations. According to the amendment, Ministers of the Crown, Departments, and the National Assembly for Wales will,
so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of
their functions, be obliged to conserve
biological diversity in accordance with the Convention.
What happened to Northern Ireland? I could ask what happened to Scotland, but I assume that I would be told that the Scottish Parliament will have to give effect to the convention in its own way. I take that as read, but it would be interesting to hear the Minister comment. I can, however, see how the National Assembly for Wales, which has a rather different relationship with the House and the United Kingdom statutes, fits in with the provision. However, there remains in my mind a question about whether Northern Ireland is not mentioned in the amendment by omission. Do we not care about biological diversity in Northern Ireland? I would have thought that we did. I hope that there is not a lacuna in the amendment, and that that matter has not been overlooked or forgotten. Will the Minister reassure me that Northern Ireland is properly catered for and that biological diversity is safe there?
Subsection (2) of the new clause deals with the publication of lists of living organisms and types of habitat which
in the opinion of the Secretary of State and the Assembly…are of principal importance for the purpose
of giving effect to the convention. We now start to get into the nitty-gritty of the mechanisms whereby effect will be given to the convention's aspirations. To the casual observer, it may appear that it is fairly straightforward to produce a list. Indeed, that is easily achieved. However, have any estimates been made of the scale of the lists and the number that will be required? In principle, that should be easy to estimate. Ministers, Departments and the National Assembly for Wales will be involved, so it should be easy to put a figure on how much is involved in the production of lists of living organisms and types of habitat, the very obligation laid upon them by the amendment.
Subsection (3) of the new clause might impose greater costs. Not only are the lists to be produced, but there is a duty
to promote the taking by others of…such steps as appear to the authority to be reasonably practicable to further the conservation.
That provision could take us into some interesting territory. The new clause deals not only with the production of the list, but also the promotion effort. Such provision could have extensive organisational, staffing and cost implications, to say nothing of the steps that other bodies would be obliged to take in response to action taken by the listing authority. Another element of cost has appeared, to which an estimate should be attached at this stage.
The new clause goes on to deal with consultation, having already provided for listing and promotion. [Interruption.] The Minister finds that amusing. He would. To him the expenditure of taxpayers' money is nothing—a mere bagatelle. If he thought it appropriate, the words "biological diversity" would be sufficient to spark an orgy of public spending. But a simple question remains. The Minister is the custodian of taxpayers' money as well as an enthusiast for biological diversity.

Mr. Llwyd: Am I right in thinking that the right hon. Gentleman does not believe that it is worth while to spend taxpayers' money to preserve endangered species?

Mr. Forth: I cannot make a judgment until I know how much money is involved. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) for making that point more clearly than I seem to have done. However wonderful biological diversity may be, and however anxious we are about endangered species, it is legitimate for hon. Members—indeed, it is our duty—to take an interest in what is involved in achieving the aims set out by the convention, for which the hon. Gentleman is, no doubt, a keen enthusiast. I do not accept that it is legitimate for Members of Parliament, who are responsible in different ways for the raising of public money through taxation and then its expenditure, to exercise that responsibility without knowing anything of the cost involved.
The new clause imposes on the public bodies duties to create the lists and to persuade others to take appropriate measures. A consultation process, to which reference has been made, is also to occur. In addition, however, subsection (5) of the new clause states:
Each listing authority shall, in consultation with the appropriate conservation body—
(a) keep under review any list published by the authority
Furthermore, authorities must keep those lists under review and continue to revise them.
Those are serious requirements, and I have no doubt that the Minister wants them to be fulfilled responsibly, thoroughly and comprehensively, to ensure that the convention's aims can be properly fulfilled. Thus it is surely reasonable for us to ask what cost is involved. Does the Minister believe that the provisions can be properly and easily effected within existing organisational structures and with existing staff, or that extra expenditure will be necessary? If it is necessary, roughly how much will be needed? It is not right to expect hon. Members to sign up to the provisions blindly and regardless of cost.
I remind hon. Members of what has occurred in the past few days, during which the Government, in the person not only of the Deputy Prime Minister but of the Minister for the Environment, were present in The Hague. They went there following an international beano a few years ago in which everybody cuddled up to each other and expressed warm thoughts about what they wanted to do, but the wheels came off when it came to detailed implementation. The detail caused the difficulties, not the grandiose pronouncements, lavish meetings or mutual self-congratulation to which Ministers are prone. It is such detail that we are considering under amendment No. 104.
My query is whether we, and the Minister, are satisfied that he knows enough about the costs of the staffing and organisational implications of Lords amendment No. 104 to believe that they will be carried out, and whether all the authorities involved have the means and the ability to manage them in a way that will give effect to the convention's aspirations.
Those are the questions that arise in this context. I do not believe that I am making an unreasonable request. Any responsible Government, and any responsible Minister, would already have made all that clear, but the right hon. Gentleman has not yet chosen to share the information with us, although I hope that he is about to do so. Unless we know the costs, we are unable to make a proper judgment—I am trying to answer the spirit of the question that the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy asked me a moment ago—about how far we can go, with regard to public expenditure and commitment, to meet the convention's objectives.
That is a very simple point, and I am sure that the Minister will give me a straightforward and, I hope, comprehensive answer; after which we can move on.

Mr. Meacher: In the almost certainly mistaken belief that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is searching for real information and elucidation, I shall answer his questions. First, the Bill will apply not to Northern Ireland and Scotland, but only to England and Wales. Secondly, on the question of cost,

the measure will put on a statutory basis what happens already, and will not lead to any increased public expenditure.
Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 66

SITES OF SPECIAL SCIENTIFIC INTEREST

Lords amendment: No. 105, in page 41, line 38, at end insert—
("() A notification under section 23 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 (notification to local planning authorities of areas of special scientific interest) which by virtue of section 28(13) of the 1981 Act as originally enacted had effect as if given under section 28(1)(a) of that Act, shall cease to have effect.")

Mr. Meacher: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 107, 111 to 113, 133 to 135 and 238 to 268.

Mr. Meacher: These Lords amendments relate to clauses 66 to 70 in part III and to schedules 8 to 10, which together will deliver better protection for sites of special scientific interest.
The Government used the opportunity presented by the discussion in the other place to introduce amendments to enable new powers to be used within the large number of sites—there are some 5,000 in England and Wales—that have already been notified. The conservation agencies are required to prepare a statement of views about the management of the land and to bring existing SSSIs into line with the new notification procedures. Also, when a notice of intent was served in the past, but no consent was given, and no management agreement has been made, the agency has a new power to serve a stop notice, against which there is, of course, a right of appeal.
The Government also introduced provisions ensuring that full information about SSSIs may be passed on when an interest in SSSIs changes hands. We also sought and received agreement to a number of other minor and technical Lords amendments, which will ensure that the provisions for improving the procedures for notifying, protecting and managing SSSIs, which have been generally welcomed, are proportionate and workable.
We also considered arguments about the effect of the provisions on public bodies and introduced Lords amendments responding to those concerns and clarifying procedures, particularly for the restoration of an SSSI following activities by public bodies. That issue was raised by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) and my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper). Once again, we have listened to the argument and responded.

Mr. Paice: I want to discuss not Lords amendment No. 105 but Lords amendments Nos. 240 and 241—the Minister will concur that there is much similarity between them. The proposed clause heading in Lords amendment No. 240 is "Notification of additional land"; that for Lords amendment No. 241 is "Enlargement of SSSI". The wording of the amendments is very similar. I am puzzled about the nature of the difference between the two—not
the textual difference, but the difference in impact. One would add land to an SSSI, while the other would enlarge the SSSI. Those strike me as amounting to one and the same thing.
Can the Minister tell us whether, in the case of Lords amendment No. 240, the additional area will be described as part of the SSSI? If so, why is that not the same as enlargement, as specified in Lords amendment No. 241? Will he also confirm that the new area will itself be of special scientific interest—that it will not just be a question of enlarging the existing SSSI, perhaps to protect it? There seems to be considerable doubt about whether the extra land described in Lords amendment No. 240 is itself of any special interest, or whether it will simply enhance the existing site.
Lords amendment No. 256 seems rather draconian. It obliges the owner of land that is included in an SSSI to notify the Nature Conservancy Council—or rather, given the point that we have reached in the Bill, English Nature—if he disposes of any interest in the land, or
becomes aware that it is occupied by an additional or a different occupier.
We must ask, what is an occupier? Does the amendment refer to land that is legally
occupied by an additional or a different occupier?
If the occupier lets part of the property to a fanner or a sporting syndicate, the owner will presumably know about it, and will be in a position to notify English Nature. But what if it is illegally occupied? Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have experienced the problems of illegal occupation of land by itinerants. Does that count as occupation? Must the owner notify English Nature in that event?
Moreover, subsection (4) appears to criminalise the offence of not telling English Nature that an SSSI has been sold. That strikes me as incredibly draconian. I accept that we are talking about level 1 on the scale of fines, but we are nevertheless talking about a conviction. Surely making someone who simply neglects or omits or, indeed, forgets to tell English Nature that he has sold his land liable for a criminal conviction is incredibly heavy-handed. I hope that the Minister can tell us a little more.
New section 28R would empower English Nature to make byelaws
for the protection of a site of special scientific interest.
The National Farmers Union contacted me today. Although it supports the amendments in principle, it is very concerned about the issue of byelaws. Its briefing states:
In practice bylaws have not proven to be an effective means of controlling damage, not least because rural police forces are already over-stretched.
We have heard enough about the subject today to know the strength of that statement. The NFU went on to say:
In this context what provision would be made to enforce these byelaws?
We believe that byelaws should not be developed unless consultation and the approval of relevant owners and occupiers is first obtained. In the absence of alternative enforcement agents, owners and occupiers are likely to be the only persons able to enforce byelaws.

9.45 pm
Many SSSIs are in relatively remote areas, and the landowner or one of his employees is most likely to come across damage or someone breaking the byelaws. How will the prosecution process proceed? Will we expect landowners and their staff to be responsible for enforcing byelaws made by English Nature? The gist of the NFU's concern is that it does not believe that byelaws will protect a site, however well meaning the intention behind them.
Of all the groups of amendments that we have discussed, this group gives me the least joy to support. Some of the amendments are good, but amendments Nos. 240 and 241 appear to duplicate each other, and three aspects of amendment No. 256 give rise to serious concerns. I am inclined to think that it is massively draconian to suggest that someone should be convicted of a crime simply for not writing a letter, which is the gist of paragraph (4) of the amendment. I hope that the Minister will be able to allay my concerns or at the very least explain the difference between amendments Nos. 240 and 241.

Mr. Llwyd: I agree with the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) about amendment No. 256. It is inappropriate to bring the panoply of criminal law to bear in this case. There is another way to deal with the problem. The SSSI designation is registerable under the Land Charges Act 1972, and if it is registered for local government searches there is no need to place an onus on the landowner to notify a change. That is a more fail-safe procedure and it is straightforward and easy to implement.
Apart from that misgiving, I welcome most of the amendments. Extra protection for SSSIs is important throughout the United Kingdom. It is of special significance in Wales where 11 out of 16 SSSIs are managed for sporting purposes. We have a diverse and significant range of land that is eligible for SSSI status. It reflects the dedication of land managers, the shooting fraternity, falconers and others beyond the pressures and constraints of the agricultural economy.
Various bodies lobbied on this matter when the Bill was in the other place, and I am pleased that some progress has been made. The Countryside Alliance welcomes in particular the Government's inclusion of an amendment to exempt persons being charged for the offence of recklessly or intentionally damaging an SSSI if they have planning permission or are part of an emergency operation and the Nature Conservancy Council or the Countryside Council for Wales have been notified as soon as possible. That sensible amendment will allow greater flexibility for land management practices. It also demonstrates an understanding that conservation aims have to be realistic and take account of local livelihood needs.
I also welcome the amendment that excludes a person from imprisonment if an offence was committed in the course of, or was incidental to, the carrying out of a lawful activity. That, too, is sensible and provides a safeguard for land managers who are going about their day-to-day activities. I utterly share the misgivings about amendment No. 256 detailed by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire. I suggest respectfully to the Minister the


course of action to which I have pointed, which may be preferable without placing an undue onus on any landowner.

Mr. Forth: The group of amendments illustrates probably better than most others the difficulties in which we find ourselves due to the Government's arrogant attitude towards the legislative process and the House itself. I reckon that there are 12 pages of text in amendments Nos. 238 to 268 alone—the group of amendments within the main group—which we are being asked effectively to nod through the House at this late stage. The Government are saying to us arbitrarily that they will limit the time available for considering the amendments to 10 o'clock. There is no reason for that, but that is what the Government have said. We find ourselves with only 10 minutes to go and amendments Nos. 238 to 268 take up 12 pages of text.
I shall not attempt to wade through all those amendments because I cannot, but I want to follow on from what my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) and the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) have said about amendment No. 256. Before I do so, I pause for a moment on amendment No. 240. It refers to the Nature Conservancy Council and its powers of notification. It says that it must notify the local planning authority, every owner and occupier of the "extra land" and the Secretary of State.
There is provision—the Minister touched on it in his brief remarks—for an appeal mechanism, but that is not good enough. For a bureaucracy or quango such as the Nature Conservancy Council, or any other, to have the power conferred by statute—in this case, by an amendment—simply to say, "It is all right; there is an appeal mechanism" is not good enough. The onus is then always on the hapless owner and occupier, presumably at his own expense, to seek to defend his interests, where necessary, against the depredations of the quango. It does not matter that the quango may sound warm and good and no doubt wants to do excellent work. It is still a bureaucracy and it is given extensive powers within statute—through an amendment—that must be watched closely.
The Secretary of State can look after himself. He has unlimited taxpayers' money and unlimited officials to look after him and teams of junior Ministers to support him. The local planning authority can more than ably look after itself, too. It also has taxpayers' money, officials and endless resources with which to do battle with the bureaucracy. Who is the odd person out? Surprise, surprise, it is the owner and occupier, who may be sitting on what is called extra land. He may be subject to some ghastly bureaucratic notification, feel aggrieved, seek to exercise his right to appeal, and then find that he must reach deeply into his own pocket to do so. For the Minister to say, "Do not worry, chaps; there is an appeal mechanism," is not necessarily the whole story. I hope that he might already be feeling a bit guilty about that, although it does not look as if he does.
When I come to amendment No. 256, I think that guilt would be a modest term to apply to what I hope the Minister will feel. My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire drew the House's attention to the fact that there is a new set of powers—it seems that the Nature Conservancy Council is again the relevant body—where the owner of the land
becomes aware that his land

is occupied by an additional or a different occupier. I imagine that if the area of land is relatively small, the matter will appear fairly straightforward, although, as my hon. Friend pointed out, some of the additional or different occupiers may not be there with the consent of the owner of the land. I wonder whether that gives rise to a different or new set of circumstances.
I suppose that it is also quite likely, if the land is a reasonably extensive holding, that someone could occupy part of it without being noticed by the owner for some time. It would therefore be fairly easy for the owner to fall foul of the provisions in proposed new section 28N(2) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which sets out a 28-day time limit, and then fall even further foul of proposed new subsection (4), which states:
A person who fails without reasonable excuse to comply with the requirements of this section is guilty of an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 1 on the standard scale.
That appears to me to be an extremely tough sanction facing a number of innocent people who, in certain circumstances not of their own making, and in some difficulty, may not be able to comply with the requirements of the new section. It appears straightforward enough and, no doubt, it is drafted with the best of intentions, but one can easily envisage circumstances in which individuals would find themselves severely disadvantaged by the provisions.
A heading that is found much later in the 12 pages of text—it appears at the beginning of Lords amendment No. 268, which proposes an entirely new schedule to the 1981 Act—is "After Schedule 9" and the following amendment runs to several pages. I do not have time to detain the House with a detailed examination of the amendment, which tells its own story—[HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."] Labour Members appear to find this amusing, but it is their Government who are denying the House of Commons, of which they are Members, the opportunity properly to examine pages and pages of detailed statutory requirements which have come to us from another place and which are not going to be properly examined. I have the opportunity only to flag up to the Minister for the Environment, who I hope will answer the debate properly, the provisions set out in paragraphs 19(1) and (2) of the new schedule under the heading "Compensation and grants". Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the provisions will be adequate for the purpose? Given the imbalance between the powers available to the bureaucracy and those available to individual landowners, matters such as compensation and grants become of the greatest importance.
That is even more important in connection with a provision that is almost hidden away at the end of the pages and pages of detail: our old friend "Powers of entry". Is the Minister satisfied that that provision is necessary to fulfil the objectives of this part of the Bill and that proper protection is given to individual citizens against powers of entry? Those are important questions, but we do not have the time needed to deal with them properly. I must conclude now, because of the artificial time limits that have been placed on our consideration of the Bill.

Mr. Meacher: The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) asked some detailed questions about Lords amendments Nos. 240, 241 and 256. I shall try to answer in the time available to me.
Lords amendment No. 240 relates to minor changes to the boundaries of existing SSSIs which involve no change to the list of damaging operations for the SSSI. Owners of land proposed to be added to an SSSI may object under new subsection (4) and English Nature is obliged to consider the objection. In that case, owners of the pre-existing part of the SSSI are unaffected and so have no right to object.
By contrast, Lords amendment No. 241 relates to significant enlargements to an SSSI. In such cases, the whole area of the SSSI—that is, both the pre-existing part and the proposed addition—must together form an area that meets SSSI criteria. English Nature is likely to want to change the list of damaging operations in such cases, so all owners of both the pre-existing part and the additional land will be affected, therefore the whole procedure for making an SSSI and considering objections applies. It was English Nature which asked for the provisions, and it is happy with them.
On amendment No. 256—if I have a minute, but I shall have to cut short my remarks—I want to reassure the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire, and confirm that, by virtue of section 20 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, there are limits on the operation of byelaws—
It being Ten o'clock, MR. SPEAKER put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [27 November].
Lords amendment agreed to.
MR. SPEAKER then put the remaining Question required to be put at that hour.
Lords amendments Nos. 106 to 281 agreed to.

Transport Bill

Commons reasons for insisting on disagreeing to certain Lords amendments and Government amendments in lieu, considered.

The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): I beg to move, That this House insists on its disagreement to Lords amendments Nos. 27 to 29.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments (a) to (c) in lieu.

Mr. Prescott: I do not know where my opposite number, the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) is for this debate—perhaps one statement was enough for him today. One might have expected him to attend the debates on either the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill or the Transport Bill—presumably he has responsibility for both—but we shall have to make do with his second in command—[Interruption.] Yes, perhaps he is away—tired, exhausted and unable to deal with the details of this Bill.
When the Transport Bill first returned to the House, my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning gave a full and clear explanation of the Government's reasons for opposing the Lords amendments. I shall not repeat those reasons at length, but I should briefly remind the House of them, particularly as the debate will last only approximately one hour.
First, we do not agree that the public-private partnership needs to be deferred until after the next general election. We made our policy clear before, during and after the previous general election campaign, in which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that we had to bring together in partnership the public sector and the private sector to give us the infrastructure that we need in the transport system.
A month before the general election, in April, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made it clear that we would consider National Air Traffic Services for a public-private partnership. We were faced with a situation in which the outgoing Government had already calculated the receipts from a full privatisation of NATS and taken them into account in the subsequent two years' spending plans. All Labour Members fought on that policy at the general election.
Since the general election, we have consulted at great length on the PPP proposal and listened carefully to the replies. All the issues have been debated at length, not least during passage of the Bill in this House and in another place, and in the Select Committees. We remain convinced that the public-private partnership is the right solution for NATS. Indeed, the Bill itself is a better Bill for the discussions, and the changes that they brought about.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: If my right hon. Friend remains so convinced, why has he been unable to convince the British Air Line Pilots Association?

Mr. Prescott: I think that the only threat to safety comes from the constant visits that my hon. Friend makes to the pilots' cabin during the flight.
Secondly, delays would be damaging—

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will my right hon. Friend allow me?

Mr. Prescott: No; I have to get—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Give way."] No, I am not giving way.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Will my right hon. Friend allow me?

Mr. Prescott: Secondly—

Hon. Members: Give way.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman does not intend to give way. [Interruption.]

Mr. Prescott: I do not have to, either.

Mr. Speaker: That is the Minister's right.

Mr. Prescott: Delay would be damaging to NATS, to the airlines, to passengers and to this country. There is an urgent need for substantial investment in NATS. We need the two centres, at Swanwick and at Prestwick, and we need them on time. There is also an urgent need for the injection of new project management skills. Everyone who knows about the industry agrees that we need to separate service provision from regulation, and especially safety regulation, as indeed the Transport Sub-Committee recommended—and we adopted its recommendation. I shall now give way to its Chairman.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I am astonishingly honoured. I am overwhelmed—and I am not even French.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have not chosen to visit any flight decks but that I happen to know that BALPA gave serious evidence to our Committee to the effect that it is strongly convinced that the PPP is not in the interests of air safety? I hope that he will now answer the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell).

Mr. Prescott: I have visited flight decks and found pilots with different views, but also ones with the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). The British Air Line Pilots Association has made it clear that it does not support the proposal. That is a matter of record, both in the Sub-Committee and in the House. BALPA took the same view when British Airways was privatised, but I do not think that it now believes that safety is threatened in a privatised airline. If I am to take account of the vested interests, I must consider how the pilots changed their mind once it became a privatised company.
Perhaps most important, there is an urgent need for certainty. Further delay at this stage would be unfair and damaging to the future of air traffic control.
There is also a constitutional issue. The other House is a revising Chamber and has been very helpful on the Bill, on such matters, for example, as charging utilities

companies for street works, concessionary fares for disabled people, and the concept of home zones; but this is the elected House that reflects the will of the people. The Government are an elected Government. The other House should not continue to oppose the declared will of this House, as it is trying to do.
This debate is not only about NATS but about whether the other House can lay down a timetable and conditions concerning legislation passed by this House. I am accountable to this House, as are the whole Government, and if we argue the case and have a proposal endorsed in this House with a strong majority, and if it then keeps coming back from the Lords, who say that they do not oppose the Bill but want to put a timetable on it and lay down the political condition that it should be written into a manifesto, that is a ridiculous position. Are we really saying that the House of Lords should lay down conditions saying what should go into political parties' manifestos? That is a constitutional issue.
A combination of Tory and Liberal Democrat Lords have challenged this House. We listened to their views and disagreed with them, but they continue to oppose the will of this House. Our vote tonight will make it clear that we do not accept the proposition that they should lay down timetables or conditions about legislation that this House has passed.

Mr. Graham Brady: Is it the Deputy Prime Minister's view that, on a free vote, he could carry the business tonight? He talks about the elected will of the House. Will he put the matter to a free vote?

Mr. Prescott: Yes, I believe that we could win such a vote. I think that everyone understands that Governments arrive at their decisions based on the policies that they have agreed, then bring them to the House and have a vote on them. That is precisely what we have done on several occasions both here and in the House of Lords. On some occasions, we have won a substantial majority of the votes. On this issue, we were defeated in the Lords by a majority of only seven. That is not an overwhelming or substantial vote in any circumstances.
It is quite instructive to look at who is supporting the Lords amendments. There are some strange bedfellows. We have noble Lords who want to keep NATS in public ownership, a Conservative party that wants total privatisation of the whole thing, and Liberal Democrats who want something in between—surprise, surprise—but not the PPP.
Opponents of the public-private partnership are much given to playing the safety card. Of course safety is the first priority, and we say so in the Bill. It is simply not true that the private sector is unsafe, and in that regard I have given the example of British Airways. Airlines are strongly in favour of the public-private partnership. Would they support it if they thought that it was unsafe? I do not think that we can honestly say that they would, and a view was expressed about the matter in today's letter to The Times from the chairmen of three major aviation companies.
The hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) told the House on 15 November that he had 100 per cent. faith in the safety regime of NATS. The Conservative peer Baroness O'Cathain said last night that playing the safety card was irresponsible and scaremongering.
I fear that the spectre of the not-for-profit trust will reappear this evening. That issue was dealt with at some length on Report. In that debate, I explained why it was not the right solution for NATS. This House did not support the proposal for a not-for-profit trust, which was also defeated in another place.
The Government still do not support that proposal. Let me be clear: we are not proposing to reopen the nature of the public-private partnership. I am pleased that distinguished members of the Conservative party see the merit in what we propose. Baroness Hogg said in the other place last night that the involvement of a private enterprise in state activities is a plus, and that the public-private partnerships were a manifestation of that involvement. At least she had a clear view—quite different from hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench in this House.
We recognise that a message underlies the Lords amendments. We have listened to that message, and we have listened to what has been said, in both Chambers, throughout the Bill's passage. We have made a number of adjustments—on safety, pensions and the two-centre strategy. We are proposing to make a further change tonight, but we have held to the public-private partnership because we believe it to be the right solution for NATS.
The amendments that stand in my name are an expression of good intent. We want to make it clear that, if the Bill passes through the House this week, we shall not rush out and select a strategic partner for NATS next week. The amendments are an undertaking that we will take time to conduct the process properly, and that we will work on the detail involved.
We have continued to talk to the staff representatives to address ourselves to their worries. We will offer staff the opportunity to meet potential strategic partners. We will further discuss the circumstances of the 5 per cent. employee share scheme, and we will ensure that both the Civil Aviation Authority and NATS are well organised for their new roles before they are separated.

Mr. John Redwood: If the Deputy Prime Minister discovers that he cannot satisfy the staff representatives, or many of his own Back-Bench colleagues, will he delay or give up the scheme? Does he realise that it is deeply unpopular with many Labour Members and with most of the staff?

Mr. Prescott: This House has expressed its view on this matter quite clearly. The issue is now not about the purpose of the Bill or about the public-private partnership but about whether the Lords—which is a revising Chamber—is prepared to delay the Bill. As I said before, it is constitutionally unacceptable that it should try to set a timetable for Government legislation and make the condition that any legislation be proposed in a party manifesto.
In this House, we determine opinion through proper debate and a vote. The votes that the Government have won show that we have achieved agreement on this matter in this House.

Mr. Alex Salmond: Last night, Lord Macdonald described the proposed three-month

delay as a concession. However, the Deputy Prime Minister has said only that the Government will make sure that NATS is ready for a public-private partnership, which I presume would have been the case anyway. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the amendment is a concession? if so, what is the concession?

Mr. Prescott: That is understandable, but the House of Lords has returned the Bill with the PPP. In those circumstances, there are matters that representatives and individuals may wish to discuss; for example, the 5 per cent. employee share scheme, in which some trade unions took the view they did not want to be involved. That is an offer to individual employees; perhaps the unions did not feel that they could enter into discussions while there was such controversy as to whether or not we would have a PPP for NATS. I can understand that, and anyone who has been involved in industrial or political matters will know that it is possible that those concerned could want further discussions. The amendments allow us the opportunity to provide three more months to discuss these matters, as well as to ensure that both the Civil Aviation Authority and NATS are well organised for their new roles before they are separated.
These are real issues which we have discussed, and we are prepared, in the circumstances, to give further time to discuss the matter. That is right and proper in view of the history of and opposition to the Bill, and that is what we are offering with the amendments.
The amendments are our promise to the House. I believe that it is right to proceed with care, but I do not believe that it is right for a revising Chamber to delay the PPP until the election, or to reopen the whole question of the nature of the PPP at this stage. Reference has been made in the other place to political shenanigans. Political responsibility, on the other hand, is to decide the right future for NATS, its safe operation, its regulation and its investment, taking the time and trouble to prepare for the future and then making it happen. The Lords amendments are misguided, while the Government's amendments are a reasonable response to any genuine concern.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I welcome the Deputy Prime Minister to the debate; we missed him last time. Frankly, our previous discussion was marred by his absence. The Minister for Housing and Planning did his very best, but that is not the same as having the Secretary of State present, as he has been party to the discussions.
We have come rather a long way since our last debate. It is all very well for the Deputy Prime Minister to bluster and fluster about constitutional outrage, but he seems to have conceded the morality of the case by tabling an amendment that accepts the legitimacy of the other place's claim to second-guess the decisions of this House. It was, after all, the Leader of the House of Lords who said that a reformed House was a more legitimate House. I am delighted to see that the Secretary of State is now making gestures in the direction of recognising the reality of the weakness of his case. The upper House has already scored a moral victory.
Why are the Government in this mess over the Bill? It is because their entire legislative programme is in one hell of a mess. They have fallen behind on the timetable of every single Bill, so that not only are they trying to cram consideration of all the Lords amendments on all these


Bills into this last week, but this last week itself is a week or two behind time. The Government have run out of time and they have had to take the issue right to the wire.
The Government are also in a mess because they have no mandate for this most controversial policy. A former Labour party chairman, Baroness Jeger, pointed out:
Moreover, we had balloons stating, "Our air is not for sale."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 27 November 2000; Vol. 619, c. 1216.]
That underlines how deeply misleading Labour has been over this policy. It is therefore entirely legitimate not only for the House of Lords to retire gracefully on things that were in the Government's manifesto, but for it to take a stand against things that before the general election the governing party expressly denied would happen. It is utterly ridiculous for the Government to go into overdrive and claim that they might lose the entire Transport Bill, or have to remove whole chunks of it, or invoke the Parliament Act—as though there were time for that. All that has been bluster, to blind the public to the fact that they are having to climb down.

Mr. Denis MacShane: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Jenkin: I can never resist the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. MacShane: The hon. Gentleman is, as ever, too kind, too willing and always available. As an expert in bluster, will he answer a factual question? Were the Bill to be passed and were his party to win power again, would he renationalise the national air traffic control system?

Mr. Jenkin: I can tell the hon. Gentleman one thing: our policy on National Air Traffic Services will be in our manifesto, whereas the Labour party's policy was not in the Labour manifesto. Our policy at the previous election was to transfer NATS to a British company with British shareholders, regulating British-controlled air space.
Why are the Government unable to deliver the assurances that they keep making? Can the Minister guarantee that in future the Secretary of State will be able to exercise powers under the golden share? A press release issued by the European Commission shows that it is taking the Government to court over the golden share in British airports because it is now believed that golden shares are illegal under European Union law. How can the hon. Gentleman give any assurance that any of the emergency powers will be exercisable under the legislation?
Why, in this curious botched privatisation, is the economic regulation group of the Civil Aviation Authority asking for cuts in capital investment as a preparation for privatisation? After all, the Government keep saying that the purpose is to increase capital investment rather than to cut it.
Why do the Government insist that they will hold 49 per cent. of the shares, when the key clause in the Bill shows that they could reduce their shareholding to 25 per cent. or less? How many times have we put that point to the Minister, and how many times has he failed to give proper assurances? As we have said before, this is not a straightforward privatisation, but a deal made behind closed doors—a cronies' deal made in smoke-filled rooms.
Crucially, after three and a half years of fiddling around with transport policy and this Bill, what is the reason for this sudden desperate rush, when we can be only a few months away from a general election? The sudden urgency simply does not ring true. It has more to do with the Government's political credibility than with the strength of their case.
The Government have now brought forward a compromise amendment, which is a vindication of the stand taken by the upper House. What does a three-month delay actually mean? Is this a compromise amendment or not? The Secretary of State should tell us. Will it make any difference to what the Government would have done anyway? I think not. The Secretary of State says that this will allow future discussion. Future discussion for whom?

Mr. Prescott: Not you.

Mr. Jenkin: Precisely. The right hon. Gentleman makes the case for me. There will be no future discussion in public—no future discussion with the voters of this country. There will be no chance for the voters to decide whether they support this policy.
We are simply not convinced by the Secretary of State's presentation this evening. He knows in his bones that he has been forced to bring this privatisation to Parliament by the Treasury, against his better judgment. It is a botched privatisation.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will my hon. Friend remind us who, at the Labour party conference, gave the commitment that the air was not for sale? Was it not the present Chief Secretary to the Treasury? He is not in his place now, but did he not give a commitment to the Labour party that the Government would not do this?

Mr. Jenkin: The ironies are even greater. As the Deputy Prime Minister explained, it was the Chancellor who mumbled behind his hand in the middle of a pre-election crisis that privatisation had not been ruled out. The Treasury has driven this deal, against the better judgment of the Secretary of State, who has become a poodle of the Treasury in the matter.

Mr. Prescott: Moi?

Mr. Jenkin: The right hon. Gentleman's French might provoke me to a flounce, so I suggest that he control himself.
We will continue to oppose this botched privatisation. We will put our policy on National Air Traffic Services into our manifesto. We will be honest with the British people—unlike this Government.

Dr. Gavin Strang: We on the Government Benches have listened carefully to the Deputy Prime Minister's comments on behalf of the Government. We may choose to describe the proposal as a public-private partnership or a partial privatisation, but the Bill provides for a sell-off to the private sector of the bulk of the equity of National Air Traffic Services, and provides explicitly for the national stakeholding to fall to 25 per cent. Indeed, in Committee, it was pointed out that, in exceptional circumstances following that, there
could be complete private flotation if there were a disagreement between the private strategic partner and the Government.
We, as Members of the House of Commons, are making law. We have listened carefully to the Deputy Prime Minister, and I will comment on some of his remarks. We are deciding what will happen to our air traffic control system. The best way in which to oppose the privatisation of our air traffic control system is to vote against the Labour Government tonight.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Raynsford: That did not sound very convincing.

Dr. Strang: The Minister should ponder.
The Deputy Prime Minister is, first, seeking to reverse the decision of the House of Lords and, secondly, moving amendments in lieu of the Lords amendments. There are questions about what the amendments mean. I have no doubt that the meetings to which my right hon. Friend referred will be entered into with good intent—that is not in dispute—but that does not affect the decision that we are being asked to take as law makers. That is the issue; that is why we must oppose, first, the proposition to reverse the decision of the House of Lords and, secondly, the proposal for a three-month period. Is it a review? I am not certain. It is therefore clear that if we wish to resist the partial privatisation of our air traffic control system, we must oppose the Government in both Divisions.
I understand the position taken by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, but the position established in the other place enables the Government to walk away from this privatisation with dignity. We know that there are excellent policies in the Transport Bill, which must be saved. So I appeal to the Government—this is not a constitutional outrage; I do not think that anybody would now argue that—to accept the will of the House of Lords and to think again.

Mr. Michael Moore: This is the third time in a month that this issue has been debated in the House, and the positions are pretty well dug in. The Government's latest move has not changed much, fails to address the issues and so is unlikely to shift opinion, certainly on the Liberal Democrat Benches.
We remain fundamentally opposed to attempts to privatise National Air Traffic Services, as we have been throughout the passage of the Bill. We acknowledge that there is a demand for investment in NATS, and recognise the need to split safety regulation from safety operation, but we do not believe that either of those requires privatisation.
10.30 pm
The Government's central proposition tonight is a three-month delay in implementation of the PPP. That is surely a new and interesting negotiating ploy: "The Opposition ask for six months, we will offer three." The Government are splitting the difference. We have to hope that the current discussions with the private sector

partners are a little more sophisticated. We also have to recognise that there is a false premise here. The Opposition seek a delay until after the election, to give the Labour party the opportunity to argue its case to the electorate—something that it has not had to do thus far. The Government's offer is just a cynical manoeuvre.
According to news reports of ministerial comments earlier this evening, the three months
is designed to give the Government time to explain more fully
their plans. Contrast that statement, Mr. Speaker, with the statement by Lord Macdonald in another place last night. He said that there was
a public consultation on our White Paper after we had announced the proposal for the partial sale of NATS in June 1998. A Statement was made following that consultation and there has been a Select Committee inquiry. Therefore, there has been ample time for public scrutiny of the policy and of its detail.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 27 November 2000; Vol. 619, c. 1209.]
Of course, he neglected to mention the fact that the Select Committee roundly condemned the proposals.
The three-month compromise is nothing of the kind. It is spin and nothing more. We previously supported a delay until after the election. It is not ideal, for all the reasons that we have set out before, as we would prefer an independent publicly owned corporation or a trust, but it would give us an opportunity to have a proper debate in the country as a whole.
Lord Macdonald also made mention last night of the fact that before the general election, the Prime Minister said in his message to the nation in the 1997 party manifesto:
We will search out at every turn new ways and new ideas to tackle the new issues…how to put the public and private sector together in partnership to give us the infrastructure and transport system we need.
I would be fascinated to know how many people on the Labour Benches thought that that would mean the privatisation of NATS.
Opinion poll after opinion poll supports the air traffic controllers' and pilots' position of outright opposition to this manoeuvre. If the Government are so confident of their case, why not put it to the test? Instead, we hear threats that investment will be delayed. In particular, the new Scottish centre at Prestwick is in danger.
Let us think of the broader context. How many times have we been told that the Government will spend £180 billion on transport in the next 10 years? Even though it is a wish-list figure, dependent on the private sector, it is an amount that we are supposed to take seriously. Against that figure, the investment in NATS of just over £1 billion in a similar 10-year time frame is a small drop in the ocean. Add the unprecedented health of the public finances that the Chancellor is keen to shout about, and it is no wonder that the public are cynical about the "no investment" threat. The public sector could certainly find the funds, and we believe that it could underwrite this project.
Throughout this process, the Government's approach has depressed everyone who has had to listen to it. Amid all the threats, the complaints of constitutional outrage and the compromises that are not compromises, the Government have made no attempt to tackle the increasing number of question marks over the details of the PPP. There is the new regulatory regime, which NATS itself has said that it could neither accept nor implement,


and which the management attack as inappropriate. Separately, there is the lack of additional safety inspectors for the Civil Aviation Authority, and the absence of any request for additional resources to cope with the privatised air traffic control.
How about the conflicts of interest? Lockheed Martin seeks to become the paymaster so that on the Scottish project, and through the privatised NATS, it can claim the money that it has lost at Swanwick and elsewhere.
The public distrust the Government on this subject. Perhaps some of the issues will be addressed in the three months that have been offered to explore the arguments, but the Government have shown no willingness to tackle the major issues in the past, so why should we expect a change now? The three-month compromise is worthless, and the House should reject it.

Mrs. Dunwoody: On the whole, Governments are made up of ordinary human beings who make mistakes. If they are sufficiently adult and sufficiently experienced, they know that they should not stick with their mistakes, and realise that in seeking to persuade the electorate, they do better when they not only say, "We have made a mistake," but admit it to themselves.
The partial privatisation of National Air Traffic Services is a mistake. Air traffic control is a core service for aviation. It cannot easily make a profit. Putting more and more planes into the sky is not an option. Those who seek to buy the assets all have a particular vested interest.
All the agreed bidders have some conflict of interest. Their motive is not that they consider that the scheme will make NATS a much safer or a much better invested or a much higher quality service. They know that it is a high quality service. They know that it could easily raise money on the open market. What they want to do is to protect their own sectional interest.
The national air traffic controllers have spoken not just for themselves, but for the electorate. The electorate do not want partial privatisation. At present, when there is such chaos in transport, people do not want such a development. They know that it will not work and that it will cause enormous difficulty. All the details that have been rehearsed time and again have never been refuted by the Government or by anyone else acting as an apologist.
I believe that my Government should have the courage, the integrity and, above all, the commitment to say, "This is the moment when we are prepared to abandon this ill-fated and very badly thought out scheme. We need to protect the rest of our Transport Bill, but this one bit should be rethought." If, for any reason—I cannot think of any—the Government really believe that they should bring it back, let them put it in their manifesto and let the ordinary electorate decide.
At this moment, let us accept that this ill-fated scheme will not benefit those who work in the industry, those who use the industry, those who care about the industry, or any of us as elected Members. It is not too late. Please let us abandon the scheme now.

Miss Anne McIntosh: It is a great honour to follow the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). I shall speak briefly on two points.
Is the Deputy Prime Minister telling the House that whether a political party has a mandate from the people is irrelevant? If that is the case, what purpose is served by

an election manifesto? How can the electorate conceive of the Government introducing such a measure, unless that policy was exposed in their election manifesto? [HON. MEMBERS: "Tell us about the poll tax."] The Deputy Prime Minister said that this was a constitutional issue. I believe that the House of Lords has taken a principled stand.
The Deputy Prime Minister said that safety was an issue, but of a lesser order than in the rail industry. Will he explain to the House how it is that his Government have reached a state of near hysteria after two rail disasters? Following privatisation of the rail sector, there was a lower incidence of rail accidents, whereas more people and freight were using the railways. Why do the Government adopt one view on safety on the railways and another view on air safety? I urge the House to support the Lords amendments.

Mr. MacShane: I genuinely did not understand the intervention of the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), who seemed to say that she was in favour of privatisation because it led to greater use of a service.
We have a fairly simple set of questions to answer tonight. They are about principle of what form of ownership there should be for an important service, and the problem of air traffic control, which is growing daily. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), I am not here exclusively to plead the cause of the employees of the national air traffic control system. I have to plead the cause of my constituents, who are the consumers and users of it. Then we have the politics of whether it is the House that decides, or whether the genetically modified hereditary peers of another place should pop up and decide to frustrate the will of the House.
Let us start with the principle of ownership. We must find the right form of ownership that delivers a service that is appropriate to the public and the national interest, and also delivers the safety and efficiency that we all desire.

Mr. Jenkin: To ascertain whether there is any consistency in the hon. Gentleman's position, may I ask why it is not thought necessary to privatise the tube to bring in private contractors, but it is thought necessary to privatise NATS to bring in a private contractor?

Mr. MacShane: I leave the occupants of the Opposition Front Bench to speak on that issue at another time.
Central to the debate is the nature of the ownership that is proposed. It is an attractive idea that the employees of National Air Traffic Services should have a stake in the equity, and that they should be direct partners in the ownership of the issue.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: They do not want it.

Mr. MacShane: It is true that their trade union says that they do not want it. However, when there has been a change in the ownership and control of any public service, including the national health service and the schools system, the employees—managers and workers—have
often been opposed to it. If we want—[Interruption.] This is a fundamental point about the direction that Britain takes. If we want—

Mr. Don Foster: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. MacShane: No; I ask the hon. Gentleman to forgive me. Other hon. Members want to speak. The hon. Gentleman can make his points in due course.
If we want balanced ownership in our society, we must give employees in more and more organisations a chance to take a stake in that ownership.
The second problem is more fundamental, and that is the service that NATS is able to deliver in the context of a European air traffic control system that is becoming the most congested in the world. [Interruption.] The moment I mentioned Europe, Conservative Members groaned collectively. However, this is one issue on which they can align themselves with some Labour Members, because there is not a European element.
I would like British air traffic controllers—I believe from personal experience that they are among the most professional and efficient controllers in the world—to play a direct role in the future development of air traffic control over Europe.

Mr. Foster: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. MacShane: Again, I ask the hon. Gentleman to forgive me.
We cannot run efficient air traffic control in the EU with 15 separate systems. In the wider Europe, we have Switzerland and Norway, for example, as well, and efficiency becomes even less possible. Based on our own experience of air traffic control, Britain should become a leading player in future air traffic control in Europe. I should like to see that, but it will not happen unless we move to a new form of ownership and a new means of securing the necessary investment. I ask all my friends in the unions, the air traffic control system and the British Air Line Pilots Association to consider that—Interruption.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I expect the hon. Gentleman to get a hearing. Hon. Members may disagree with him, but he is entitled to a hearing.

Mr. MacShane: I am grateful, Mr. Speaker. Like you, I expect, Government Members spent part of their youth talking to the ignorant, the uneducated and the unwashed and brought them to socialism. Slowly, bit by bit, we shall bring the Opposition to a sensible perspective on this matter.
I must part company with my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang) on one issue.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. MacShane: How can I fail to give way to my hon. Friend?

Mr. McNamara: Is my hon. Friend advocating that, by means of this measure, we fight capitalism with its own tools?

Mr. MacShane: I owe my hon. Friend affection and respect because he has made a better point than he could imagine. If one wants to know one's enemy and trip him up, one should use his techniques.
However, we are discussing a different matter. I do not expect Conservative Members, who are manipulating their ex-hereditaries down the corridor, to worry about the political question, but I ask sensible Liberal Democrat Members to consider it. The hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) said that there had been no discussion of the issue, but it was discussed in my constituency two years ago and has been on the agenda since then. Either Liberal Democrats allow themselves to be the poodles of the House of Lords, or they accept that the democratically elected Chamber, including Opposition Members, has the last word—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House must come to order.

Mr. MacShane: I hope that the will of democratically elected Members of Parliament will be expressed tonight, not the will of those who are obsessed with under-age sex and blocking every other progressive measure. To vote with them is to vote with those who voted for every reactionary measure that has been returned to this House in the past two years.

Mr. Salmond: The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) will forgive me if I do not consider myself to have been "brought to socialism" by his contribution.
I shall make some brief points. The comments of the Liberal Democrat spokesman on the three-month period were correct, and I shall take them a little further. Three months takes us to the end of February. The Deputy Prime Minister said that he would prepare the way in that period and discuss things with lots of people. Then, presumably, he has to pilot a very controversial measure through to privatisation in March, April and perhaps even May. I do not believe he will be able to give his full attention to partially privatising air traffic control next March and April. Even with his gossamer touch, that is a particularly bad time to steer through such a controversial measure.
I believe that the Deputy Prime Minister knows that he has lost the argument on legitimacy. The proposal did not appear in the Labour party manifesto. If the public remember anything about the subject, surely they remember the speech of the Labour party's transport spokesman at the 1996 party conference, or the views of a previous Labour Transport Minister, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang), who spoke earlier.
The hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) should remember a certain poll tax, which was imposed in Scotland, and the arguments that her colleagues marshalled to explain why the policy did not appear in the 1983 Conservative party manifesto. Their explanation was that although they had not specifically mentioned the poll tax, someone had said something about opposition to domestic rates. That bore an uncanny resemblance to the Deputy Prime Minister's explanation. He said, "Okay, it


wasn't in the manifesto, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in a speech that it might be candidate for partial privatisation." The Deputy Prime Minister knows that Labour voters did not believe that they were voting for partial privatisation at the last general election. I can prove that conclusively.
I called the Labour party many things in the last general election campaign. I assure the Deputy Prime Minister that, if I had believed for a second that the Labour party would partially privatise air traffic control, I would have emphasised that strongly in the 1997 campaign. Whatever else I thought about the Labour party, I believed that even for new Labour, privatising National Air Traffic Services was a privatisation too far.
It is significant that pilots, air traffic controllers and people with expertise in the system oppose partial privatisation. It is also significant that during the by-election for the Scottish Parliament in the constituency of Ayr, which includes the town of Prestwick, no candidate wanted to punt that policy. That includes the Labour party candidate, who wanted to remain as quiet as possible. Surely that was an electoral test, which showed that the policy will not gain ground with voters.
After a lifetime in CND and arguing against nuclear weapons, Neil Kinnock changed his position at the precise moment when the Berlin wall was coming down, eastern Europe was collapsing and the argument for unilateralism had more credibility than ever. Public scepticism about privatisation of infrastructure and utilities is at its highest for 20 years. It is ironic that the Deputy Prime Minister will be remembered as the man who pursued privatisation even to the extent of praying in aid Tory peers at the precise moment when the public realised the weaknesses in the privatisation formula.

Mr. Prescott: Let me make an immediate reference to the comments of the previous speaker, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). It is well known in the House that I have advocated public-private partnerships for 10 to 15 years. I am sure that not everybody, including my hon. Friends, agreed with me. However, I held that view; it has not been forced upon me. I believe that that form of financing and organisation can contribute to a better public service. That is the argument that we are holding today. However, it is not the subject that is before the House for debate. The amendments deal with delaying the process for three months or until after the next general election. We can vote only on those amendments.
The hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) claimed that there was no mandate for the public-private partnership. He is right that it does not appear in the manifesto for the last general election. However, there is no doubt that references were made to it, for example in a statement that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was then shadow Chancellor, made at the time.
We made it clear that, to balance public finances correctly and reduce the debt, we would accept the two-year public expenditure programme of the then Government. Of course, there was great anxiety about that. It meant that we had to accept the previous Government's expenditure plans and it was argued that, if the receipts involved in balancing the accounts came from the sale of NATS, there would be a hole in Labour's finances. That was a matter for debate; that is shown in the press reports of the election campaign.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor made it clear that he would be prepared to consider public-private partnership and the sale of some receipts to make up for the difference in the accounts. The alternative to that would have been to argue for higher taxation. That is the context in which the matter was approached and publicly debated. Frankly, everybody knew that, because they thought it was a difficulty for Labour. We had to argue the case, which is how the policy was born. As to whether it became party policy in the manifesto, may I develop this point?

Dr. Lynne Jones: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Prescott: In a second. We should look to the manifesto argument. As has been pointed out, the poll tax was never in the Tory manifesto, yet the Tories implemented it. The Tory manifesto did not refer to doubling VAT, but the Tories did that. All Governments, including Labour Governments, have introduced a number of measures that were not necessarily in the manifesto. That point has to be taken into account.
Labour Members are accountable to our party and we have to convince the party of that policy. Let me quote from the policy document that was determined this year and confirmed by my party's conference, which therefore makes it party policy:
The massive growth in flights places a growing burden on ageing Air Traffic Control equipment. To help improve safety, the Labour government intends to introduce a Public Private Partnership to bring in over £1 billion investment over the next 10 years.
That proposal was passed by our policy forum and by the Labour party conference, so we are entitled to call it Labour party policy. That is one way in which we have given serious attention to these matters.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang) made great play of saying that this is the last opportunity to deal with the public-private partnership that he has always, since being out of office, campaigned against. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!] That is the case. As he knows, statements were made to the House that he was improving the PPP, but I have made that point before.
The question whether the proposal is a PPP is not the issue before the House. We are discussing amendments, not legislating on whether to change the PPP. We are deciding whether to delay the decision for three months or wait until after the next election. It is quite wrong, and a constitutional outrage, for the Tories and Liberals in another place to say that we should have to face such conditions. Let us be clear about what the issue is.
As for the Liberal spokesman saying that the debate should be about an independent publicly owned company or a trust, there have been debates in this place and another place. Each time, that idea has been defeated in the vote. I am entitled to say that that is what happens in a representative democracy. People argue their case, take the vote and live with the result. I claim, therefore, that the House and another place have rejected an IPOC and a trust solution. Those are the facts, and people should consider them.
As for the argument about a £180 billion investment in our transport system, the Liberal spokesman rightly pointed out that that has a lot to do with PPPs—a
combination of public money that multiplies private capital to increase investment to a scale never seen before in transport, to deal with the massive disinvestment brought about by the previous Administration.

Mr. Jenkin: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Prescott: I do not have time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) made the point that Members of the House are ordinary people and, therefore, can make mistakes. I presume that the same logic applies to her Select Committee. I do not suppose that she is extraordinary; I presume that she is ordinary. She may have got it wrong. If the logic applies one way, it applies the other. I say to her that the current system has reduced investment and caused delay in its implementation. The administration is not adequate to meet the requirements of the public sector. The system needs to be changed, and the number of near misses has increased. It is necessary to get the technology to make those improvements.

Mr. Jenkin: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Prescott: No, I am not giving way. There is a shortage of air traffic controllers, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich has referred from time to time. That was brought about by this old system, which we intend to change to make it safer.

Mr. John McDonnell: (Hayes and Harlington)rose—

Hon. Members: Give way!

Mr. Prescott: The hon. Member for Vale of York—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is not giving way.

Mr. Prescott: I have always believed in and campaigned for—

Mr. McLoughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Deputy Prime Minister says that he cannot give way because he has insufficient time to do so. Can he table a manuscript amendment to give us extra time to discuss this matter?

Mr. Speaker: That is not possible.

Mr. Prescott: Shortage of time has been a difficulty for me in the past 10 days.
11 pm
The hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) said that she had always wanted operations involved in the provision of services to be separate, but in the case of Railtrack she voted to keep the two elements together, and we are paying the price. In the context of aviation we are

separating them, as recommended by the Select Committee. That is right, it is a consistent policy, and it will make the system safer.
The choice that the House must make tonight is not about the PPP, but about whether we should allow three months or act after the election. It is entirely wrong for an unelected House to force a condition on us involving action after the election, and to talk of a manifesto.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 305, Noes 217.

Division No. 359]
[11.1 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Ainger, Nick
Clelland, David


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Clwyd, Ann


Allen, Graham
Coaker, Vernon


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Coffey, Ms Ann


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Coleman, Iain


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Colman, Tony


Ashton, Joe
Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Cooper, Yvette


Atkins, Charlotte
Corbett, Robin


Bailey, Adrian
Corston, Jean


Banks, Tony
Cousins, Jim


Barron, Kevin
Cranston, Ross


Battle, John
Crausby, David


Bayley, Hugh
Cummings, John


Beard, Nigel
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
(Copeland)


Begg, Miss Anne
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Bennett, Andrew F
Darvill, Keith


Benton, Joe
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Bermingham, Gerald
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Berry, Roger
Dawson, Hilton


Betts, Clive
Denham, John


Blackman, Liz
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Blears, Ms Hazel
Donohoe, Brian H


Blizzard, Bob
Doran, Frank


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Dowd, Jim


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Drew, David


Borrow, David
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Edwards, Huw


Bradshaw, Ben
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Ennis, Jeff



Brown, Rt Hon Gordon
Fitzpatrick, Jim


(Dunfermline E)
Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Flint, Caroline


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Flynn, Paul


Browne, Desmond
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Burden, Richard
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Butler, Mrs Christine
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Foulkes, George


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Gapes, Mike


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Gardiner, Barry


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Gibson, Dr Ian


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Cann, Jamie
Godsiff, Roger


Caplin, Ivor
Goggins, Paul


Casale, Roger
Golding, Mrs Llin


Cawsey, Ian
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)



Clark, Dr Lynda
Grocott, Bruce


(Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hanson, David






Healey, John
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Meale, Alan


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Merron, Gillian


Hendrick, Mark
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Hepburn, Stephen
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Heppell, John
Miller, Andrew


Hesford, Stephen
Moffatt, Laura


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hill, Keith
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hoey, Kate
Morley, Elliot



Hood, Jimmy
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle


Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
(B'ham Yardley)


Hope, Phil
Morris, Rt Hon Sir John


Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)
(Aberavon)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Mullin, Chris


Howells, Dr Kim
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Hoyle, Lindsay
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Humble, Mrs Joan
Norris, Dan


Hurst, Alan
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Hutton, John
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Iddon, Dr Brian
O'Hara, Eddie


Illsley, Eric
Olner, Bill


Ingram, Rt Hon Adam
O'Neill, Martin


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Organ, Mrs Diana


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Jenkins, Brian
Palmer, Dr Nick


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Pearson, Ian


Johnson, Miss Melanie
Pendry, Tom


(Welwyn Hatfield)
Pickthall, Colin


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Plaskitt, James


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Pollard, Kerry


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Pond, Chris


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Pope, Greg


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Keeble, Ms Sally
Primarolo, Dawn


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Purchase, Ken


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Kemp, Fraser
Quinn, Lawrie


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


Khabra, Piara S
Rammell, Bil


Kidney, David
Rapson, Syd


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Raynsford, Nick


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Robertson, John


Lammy, David
(Glasgow Anniesland)


Laxton, Bob
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Leslie, Christopher
Rogers, Allan


Levitt, Tom
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Rooney, Terry


Linton, Martin
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Roy, Frank


Lock, David
Ruane, Chris


Love, Andrew
Ruddock, Joan


McAvoy, Thomas
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


McCabe, Steve
Ryan, Ms Joan


McDonagh, Siobhain
Sarwar, Mohammad


Macdonald, Calum
Savidge, Malcolm


McFall, John
Sawford, Phil


McIsaac, Shona
Sedgemore, Brian


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Sheerman, Barry


Mackinlay, Andrew
Short, Rt Hon Clare


McNulty, Tony
Singh, Marsha


MacShane, Denis
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Mactaggart, Fiona

Smith, Angela (Basildon)


McWalter, Tony
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Mallaber, Judy
Smith, Miss Geraldine


Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter
(Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Martlew, Eric
Snape, Peter


Maxton, John
Soley, Clive





Southworth, Ms Helen
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Spellar, John
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Squire, Ms Rachel
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Starke, Dr Phyllis 
Tynan, Bill


Steinberg, Gerry
Vaz, Keith


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Walley, Ms Joan


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Ward, Ms Claire


Stinchcombe, Paul
Watts, David


Stoate, Dr Howard
White, Brian


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Stringer, Graham
Wicks, Malcolm


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


(Dewsbury)
Wilson, Brian


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Woolas, Phil


Temple-Morris, Peter
Worthington, Tony


Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Wray, James


Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Timms, Stephen
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Tipping, Paddy
Wyatt, Derek


Todd, Mark



Touhig, Don
Tellers for the Ayes:


Trickett, Jon
Mrs. Anne McGuire and


Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Mr. David Jamieson.


NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Curry, Rt Hon David


Allan, Richard
Dalyell, Tam


Amess, David
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Davidson, Ian


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)


Baker, Norman
Davis, Rt Hon Terry


Baldry, Tony
(B'ham Hodge H)


Ballard, Jackie
Day, Stephen


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Dismore, Andrew


Bercow, John
Dobbin, Jim


Beresford, Sir Paul
Donaldson, Jeffrey


Blunt, Crispin
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Boswell, Tim
Duncan, Alan


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Brady, Graham
Fabricant, Michael


Brake, Tom
Fallon, Michael


Brand, Dr Peter
Fearn, Ronnie


Brazier, Julian
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Breed, Colin
Flight, Howard


Browning, Mrs Angela
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Foster, Don (Bath)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Burnett, John
Fox, Dr Liam


Burns, Simon
Fraser, Christopher


Burstow, Paul
Garnier, Edward


Butterfill, John
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Cable, Dr Vincent
Gerrard, Neil


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies
Gibb, Nick


(NE Fife)
Gidley, Sandra


Cash, William
Gill, Christopher


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


(Chipping Barnet)
Godman, Dr Norman A


Chaytor, David
Gordon, Mrs Eileen



Chidgey, David
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Chope, Christopher
Gray, James


Clapham, Michael
Green, Damian


Clappison, James
Greenway, John


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Grieve, Dominic


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hague, Rt Hon William


Connarty, Michael
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hammond, Philip


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hancock, Mike


Cotter, Brian
Harris, Dr Evan


Cran, James
Harvey, Nick


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Hawkins, Nick


Cryer, John (Homchurch)
Hayes, John






Heald, Oliver
Rendel, David


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Robathan, Andrew


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Hopkins, Kelvin
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Horam, John
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Rowlands, Ted


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Ruffley, David


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
St Aubyn, Nick


Jenkin, Bernard
Salmond, Alex


Jones, Ms Jenny
Salter, Martin


(Wolverh'ton SW)
Sanders, Adrian


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Shaw, Jonathan


Keetch, Paul
Shepherd, Richard


Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


(Ross Skye & Inverness W)
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Key, Robert
Skinner, Dennis


Kilfoyle, Peter
Smith Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Kirkwood, Archy
Soames, Nicholas


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Leigh, Edward
Spicer, Sir Michael



Lepper, David
Spring, Richard


Letwin, Oliver
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Steen, Anthony


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Lidington, David
Streeter, Gary


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Stunell, Andrew


Livsey, Richard
Swayne, Desmond


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Syms, Robert


Llwyd, Elfyn
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Loughton, Tim
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Luff, Peter
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


McDonnell, John
Taylor, Sir Teddy


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Tonge, Dr Jenny


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Townend, John


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Trend, Michael


McLoughlin, Patrick
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


McNamara, Kevin
Tyler, Paul


Madel Sir David
Tyrie, Andrew


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Vis, Dr Rudi


Maples, John
Wareing, Robert N


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Waterson, Nigel


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Webb, Steve



Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Wells, Bowen


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Whittingdale, John


Moore, Michael
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Moss, Malcolm
Wilkinson, John


Nicholls, Patrick
Willetts, David


Norman, Archie
Willis, Phil


Oaten, Mark
Wilshire, David


O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)
Winnick, David


Öpik, Lembit
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Ottaway, Richard
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Page, Richard
Yeo, Tim


Paice, James
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Pickles, Eric




Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Tellers for the Noes:


Prior, David
Mr. John Randall and


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Mr. Peter Atkinson.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment disagreed to.

Motion made, and Question put, That amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment No. 27 be made.—[Mr. Raynsford.]

The House divided: Ayes 302, Noes 205.

Division No. 360]
[11.15 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack


Ainger, Nick
(Copeland)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Allen, Graham
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Darvill, Keith


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Ashton, Joe
Dawson, Hilton


Atherton, Ms Candy
Denham, John


Atkins, Charlotte
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Bailey, Adrian
Donohoe, Brian H


Banks, Tony
Doran, Frank


Barron, Kevin
Dowd, Jim


Battle, John
Drew, David


Bayley, Hugh
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Beard, Nigel
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Edwards, Huw


Begg, Miss Anne
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Ennis, Jeff


Bennett, Andrew F
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Benton, Joe
Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna


Bermingham, Gerald
Flint, Caroline


Berry, Roger
Flynn, Paul


Betts, Clive
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Blackman, Liz
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Blizzard, Bob
Foulkes, George


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Gapes, Mike


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Gardiner, Barry


Borrow, David
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Gibson, Dr Ian


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Bradshaw, Ben
Godsiff, Roger


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Goggins, Paul


Brown, Rt Hon Gordon
Golding, Mrs Llin


(Dunfermline E)
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Browne, Desmond
Grocott, Bruce


Burden, Richard
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Butler, Mrs Christine
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Hanson, David


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Healey, John


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hendrick, Mark


Cann, Jamie
Hepburn, Stephen


Caplin, Ivor
Heppell, John


Casale, Roger
Hesford, Stephen


Cawsey, Ian
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Hill, Keith


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Clark, Dr Lynda
Hoey, Kate


(Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hood, Jimmy


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hope, Phil


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Clelland, David
Howells, Dr Kim


Clwyd, Ann
Hoyle, Lindsay


Coaker, Vernon
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Coleman, Iain
Humble, Mrs Joan


Colman, Tony
Hurst, Alan


Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)
Hutton, John


Cooper, Yvette
Iddon, Dr Brian


Corbett, Robin
Illsley, Eric


Corston, Jean
Ingram, Rt Hon Adam


Cousins, Jim
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Cranston, Ross
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Crausby, David
Jamieson, David


Cummings, John
Jenkins, Brian






Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Pearson, Ian


Johnson, Miss Melanie
Pendry, Tom


(Welwyn Hatfield)
Pickthall, Colin


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Plaskitt, James


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Pollard, Kerry


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Pond, Chris


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Pope, Greg


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Keeble, Ms Sally
Primarolo, Dawn


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Purchase, Ken


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Kemp, Fraser
Quinn, Lawrie


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


Khabra, Piara S
Rammell, Bill


Kidney, David
Rapson, Syd


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Raynsford, Nick


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Robertson, John


Lammy, David
(Glasgow Anniesland)


Laxton, Bob
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Leslie, Christopher
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Levitt, Tom
Rooney, Terry


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Linton, Martin
Roy, Frank


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Ruane, Chris


Lock, David
Ruddock, Joan


Love, Andrew
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


McAvoy, Thomas
Ryan, Ms Joan


McCabe, Steve
Sarwar, Mohammad


McDonagh, Siobhain
Savidge, Malcolm


Macdonald, Calum
Sawford, Phil


McFall, John
Sedgemore, Brian


McIsaac, Shona
Sheerman, Barry


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Short, Rt Hon Clare


Mackinlay, Andrew
Singh, Marsha


McNulty, Tony
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


MacShane, Denis
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Mactaggart, Fiona
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


McWalter, Tony
Smith, Miss Geraldine


Mallaber, Judy
(Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Snape, Peter


Martlew, Eric
Soley, Clive


Maxton, John
Southworth, Ms Helen


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Spellar, John


Meale, Alan
Squire, Ms Rachel


Merron, Gillian
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Steinberg, Gerry


Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Miller, Andrew
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Moffatt, Laura
Stinchcombe, Paul


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Stoate, Dr Howard


Moran, Ms Margaret
Stringer, Graham


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Morley, Elliot
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle
(Dewsbury)


(B'ham Yardley)
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Morris, Rt Hon Sir John
Temple-Morris, Peter


(Aberavon)
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Mullin, Chris
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Timms, Stephen


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Tipping, Paddy


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Todd, Mark


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Touhig, Don


Norris, Dan

Trickett, Jon


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverhton SE)


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


O'Hara, Eddie
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Olner, Bill
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


O'Neill, Martin
Tynan, Bill


Organ, Mrs Diana
Vaz, Keith


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Walley, Ms Joan


Palmer, Dr Nick
Ward, Ms Claire





White, Brian
Worthington, Tony


Whitehead, Dr Alan
Wray, James


Wicks, Malcolm
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)
Wyatt, Derek


Wills, Michael
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wilson, Brian
Mrs. Anne McGuire and


Woolas, Phil
Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe.



NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Fearn, Ronnie


Allan, Richard
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Amess, David
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Foster, Don (Bath)


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Fox, Dr Liam


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Fraser, Christopher


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Gamier, Edward


Baker, Norman
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Baldry, Tony
Gerrard, Neil


Ballard, Jackie
Gibb, Nick


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Gidley, Sandra


Bercow, John
Gill, Christopher


Beresford, Sir Paul
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Blunt, Crispin
Godman, Dr Norman A


Boswell, Tim
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Green, Damian


Brady, Graham
Greenway, John


Brake, Tom
Grieve, Dominic


Brand, Dr Peter
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Brazier, Julian
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Breed, Colin
Hammond, Philip


Browning, Mrs Angela
Hancock, Mike


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Hams, Dr Evan


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Harvey, Nick


Burnett, John
Hawkins, Nick


Burns, Simon
Hayes, John


Burstow, Paul
Heald, Oliver


Butterfill, John
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Cable, Dr Vincent
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies
Hopkins, Kelvin


(NE Fife)
Horam, John


Cash, William
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


(Chipping Barnet)
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Chaytor, David
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Chidgey, David
Jenkin, Bernard


Chope, Christopher
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Clapham, Michael
Keetch, Paul


Clappison, James
Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
(Ross Skye & Inverness W)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Key, Robert


Connarty, Michael
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Kirkwood, Archy


Corbyn, Jeremy
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Cotter, Brian
Leigh, Edward


Cran, James
Lepper, David


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Letwin, Oliver


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Dalyell, Tam
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Lidington, David


Davidson, Ian
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Livsey, Richard


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Loughton, Tim


Davis, Rt Hon Terry
Luff, Peter


(B'ham Hodge H)
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Day, Stephen
McDonnell, John


Dobbin, Jim
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Duncan, Alan
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Fabricant, Michael
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fallon, Michael
McNamara, Kevin






Madel, Sir David
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Spicer, Sir Michael


Maples, John
Spring, Richard


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Steen, Anthony


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


May, Mrs Theresa
Stunell, Andrew


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Swayne, Desmond


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Syms, Robert



Moore, Michael
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Moss, Malcolm
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Nicholls, Patrick
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Norman, Archie
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Öpik, Lembit
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Ottaway, Richard
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Page, Richard
Townend, John


Paice, James
Trend, Michael


Pickles, Eric
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Tyler, Paul


Prior, David
Tyrie, Andrew


Randall, John
Vis, Dr Rudi


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Wareing, Robert N


Rendel, David
Waterson, Nigel


Robathan, Andrew
Webb, Steve


Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Wells, Bowen


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Rowlands, Ted
Whittingdale, John


Ruffley, David
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Wilkinson, John


St Aubyn, Nick
Willetts, David


Salmond, Alex
Willis, Phil


Salter, Martin
Wilshire, David


Sanders, Adrian
Winnick, David


Sayeed, Jonathan
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Shepherd, Richard
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Yeo, Tim


Skinner, Dennis
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Tellers for the Noes:


Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Mr. Keith Simpson and


Soames, Nicholas
Mr. James Gray.

Questions accordingly agreed to.
Amendments (b) and (c) in lieu of Lords amendments Nos. 27 to 29 agreed to.
Lords amendments in lieu of Lords amendments No. 31 agreed to.

Orders of the Day — DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

PREVENTION AND SUPPRESSION OF TERRORISM

That the draft Terrorism Act 200 (Video Recording of Interviews) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 1st November, be approved.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

VALUE ADDED TAX

That the Value Added Tax (Reduced Rate) Order 2000 (S.I., 2000, No. 2954) dated 2nd November, a copy of which was laid before this House on 2nd November, be approved.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE

That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 69) on Children's Services (Quality Protects) Special Grants for 1999–2000 and 2000–2001 (HC 968), which was laid before this House on 13th November, be approved.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]
Question agreed to.

SELECT COMMITTEES (JOINT MEETINGS)

Motion made,
That, for the next Session of Parliament, Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended as follows:
Line 37, before the word 'European' insert the words 'Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.
Line 46. before the word 'European' insert the words 'Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.
Line 48, at the end insert the words:—
'(4A) notwithstanding paragraphs (2) and (4) above, where more than two committees or sub-committees appointed under this order meet concurrently in accordance with paragraph (4)(e) above, the quorum of each such committee or sub-committee shall be two.'—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Hon. Members: Object.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made,
That, at the sittings on Thursday 30th November and Friday 1st December—

(i)the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any Messages from the Lords shall have been received, and
(ii) if the House has completed its consideration of any Messages received from the Lords and the Lords have adjourned their sitting, the Speaker shall adjourn the House without Question put.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Orders of the Day — PETITIONS

Andorra

Mr. David Heath: I wish to present a petition on behalf of British citizens resident in the principality of Andorra. The petition is signed by Graham Watson, a Member of the European Parliament. He is a constituent of mine, as I am a constituent of his. The petition is also signed by 61 British citizens resident in Andorra.
The petition refers to the annual uprating of pensions. British citizens resident in Andorra do not receive it, whereas other citizens resident elsewhere in the European Union do.
The petition states:
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.


The Humble Petition of citizens of Great Britain and Northern Ireland at present residing in the Principality of Andorra sheweth
That citizens of the United Kingdom who live in the United Kingdom, the United States of America, Croatia and the European Union receive annual increases in pensions; that those who live in Andorra, despite having paid the same amount, do not receive these annual increases, although they are no drain on the public finances such as the National Health Service and are not permitted to use National Health Form E 111 when visiting the EU.
Wherefore your petitioners pray that your Honourable House urge the Secretary of State for Social Security to review this anomaly and consider phasing in changes which will put those citizens residing in Andorra on an equal footing with other UK pensioners in this respect, starting with those over the age of eighty-five years, followed by those over 75 and then over 65.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
To lie upon the Table.

National Front

Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: I have a petition from the residents of Hastings and Rye regarding the question of racism in the town. Hastings hosts about 700 refugees. Whether that number is too great for a small town is a separate question, but what is not acceptable to the people of Hastings is the racism that is nurtured in consequence by groups such as the National Front—and by some mainstream parties which should know better.
The petition is signed by Raj Rayan and about 7,000 local inhabitants, whose signatures were collected over a period of only a day or so. It states:
The Petition of Residents of Hastings and Rye
Declares that rallies and marches in the town of Hastings by the National Front and their associated organisations nurture racism, anti-feminism, homophobic attitudes, anti-trade union sentiments and the promotion of social unrest.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for the Home Department to introduce legislation to prevent the National Front and their associated organisations from holding rallies and marches in the town of Hastings and elsewhere.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
To lie upon the Table.

Smuggling (Tobacco and Alcohol)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Betts.]

Mr. Russell Brown: I had feared that the House might sit until early morning, so I am delighted to have the opportunity to hold this debate in what is still the evening. This is a vital issue, and I know that some colleagues were disappointed that I was not able to secure a longer debate on the subject in Westminster Hall, as that would have allowed other hon. Members to take part and make valid contributions. Other colleagues have commented during the day that raising this matter in the Chamber is not the wisest thing to do. Comments have varied from "Smuggling of alcohol and tobacco goods is something that everyone does," to "It's a real vote loser to try to stop cheap cigarettes and alcohol coming into the country." This is an issue that we cannot ignore, and while I appreciate that my hon. Friend the Paymaster General will tell me that much is being done, I believe that a lot more can and should be done.
Almost three years ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard)—he is in the Chamber tonight—had an Adjournment debate on illegal imports of beer. He said then that he felt it wholly appropriate to raise the matter in the run-up to the Christmas period. Three years on, as we approach the festive season once again, it is still appropriate. In my humble view, the situation has worsened.
In the eyes of many, the quick answer to this illegal activity is to reduce significantly all the taxes and duties on tobacco and alcoholic goods. Prices would then fall and the market would close down for the traders and dealers in smuggled and bootlegged goods. Those here tonight know only too well that this will not happen and that we have to deal with the issue that confronts us today.
Cigarette smuggling is so widespread that it poses a serious threat to public health; first, by making cigarettes available cheaply and encouraging consumption; and secondly, because the tobacco industry tries to encourage Governments to reduce taxation in response to smuggling. This results in lower prices, which in turn increase consumption.
How big an issue is this? Frankly, the fact that visitors to the continent buy an extra 200 cigarettes or an extra bottle of spirits, or that business men or lorry drivers on the continent carry a small amount of extra goods for family or friends, is not the issue. Bootlegging is the process whereby tobacco and alcohol products are legally purchased in countries with lower tax rates and then illegally sold on to individuals, distributors and retailers here in the UK. The white van trade, as it is called, appears to account for about 25 per cent. of smuggled cigarettes.
The other 75 per cent. of smuggled tobacco goods are a direct result of large-scale organised crime undertaken by criminal gangs and involve freight consignments of millions of cigarettes. This form of smuggling is increasingly controlled by gangs involved in the trafficking of illegal drugs. The figures show that over 60 per cent. of those found smuggling have been involved in other criminal activities and have other convictions. What is classed as the risk-to-reward ratio for tobacco
smuggling is lower than that for illegal drugs, and many organised crime gangs are increasingly moving from narcotics into tobacco. It is estimated that 15 per cent. of the cross-channel smuggling of cigarettes into this country is a direct result of Italian gangs.
With the world of information technology has come another avenue of exploitation. Increasingly, people are purchasing alcohol and tobacco goods via the internet, from sites which are not regulated, which use child-friendly marketing, and which do not—as far as tobacco products are concerned—carry any health warning whatever. By simply entering the term "discount cigarettes" to an internet search engine, somewhere in the region of 2,000 pages of links can be produced.
The impact of all this illegal activity is significant. During the recess, I visited a local store in the Georgetown area of Dumfries, where I met the owner, Mr. George McCall. We discussed at length how this activity is affecting individual businesses. It was no surprise to hear that, on average, independent retailers are losing 16 per cent. of their trade. That is nearly £62,000 a year in lost sales, all due to bootlegging. In my home town, I am aware of one small business which, frankly, is on the verge of stopping selling tobacco and alcohol. In the owner's simple words, he cannot compete with a chap living around the corner who operates a racket.
A further adverse effect is that lower sales can lead to higher prices of other goods on sale in the shops. I am sure that my hon. Friend will keep me right, but I believe that the estimated loss to the Treasury resulting from smuggling alcohol and tobacco goods is in the region of £4 billion a year. That money could be spent on schools, hospitals, pensioners, policing, and additional Customs and Excise officers.
Parliamentary questions tabled on this matter over the past year number well in excess of 50, but I am disturbed to see from the answers that we do not appear to have any real idea of the number of prosecutions. That is indeed worrying. It is important to show that we are not sitting idly by while all this happens. Only by giving accurate figures of arrests and prosecutions will we be able to send out the message to the public that we are serious. We want to tell them that we are determined to put a stop to this illegal activity, and that people who are involved are likely to get caught.
Penalties also need to be reconsidered. In recent weeks, the national press has carried stories to the effect that Customs and Excise officers are threatening to seize and sell the cars of members of the public who buy cigarettes from bootleggers. I do not know how much truth there is in that report, but I believe that something as radical as that must be done if we are to curb this activity.
The same report made mention of a number of vehicles belonging to bootleggers that were seized in Scotland. It also reported the confiscation of an ice cream van loaded with thousands of cigarettes, parked near a school. That is the aspect that I want to consider next. Within neighbourhoods, households can pinpoint the house where cheap cigarettes, tobacco and alcohol can be purchased. However, it is not only adults who know about those houses—
schoolchildren as well as adults know where such goods can be bought. Quite honestly, those who are supplying the goods do not even give a second thought to

the age of the customer or purchaser. Children as young as nine or 10 can be seen in many neighbourhoods buying cigarettes and alcohol, not only for their parents but for their own consumption.
In considering the debate and the answers given to parliamentary questions, I see that my hon. Friend said in a reply given in April that it was intended to employ a further 1,000 Customs and Excise officers to deal with this matter, with a substantial number to be based at Dover. Although I believe that additional officers are required in the field, it concerns me that some of them may have been taken from other Customs and Excise activities.
In my constituency and that of the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Morgan), staff have been reduced from 12 in 1995 to the current three visiting officers, one home officer and one administration and secretarial officer. It is expected that the latter will be removed from her post in about six months. If we are determined to pursue best value, is it appropriate that four Customs and Excise officers should have no administrative support? Those individuals will have to open their own mail, and carry out typing and other clerical duties, even though their expertise lies in the profession for which they were trained.
Examination of the situation indicates that in Scotland and elsewhere we are seeing a centralisation of certain areas of business. I do not believe that constituencies such as mine and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Ms Osborne), where there are similar reductions in Customs and Excise staffing, provide the Customs and Excise services that businesses and individuals are looking for. Reductions in the numbers of officers dealing with VAT and debt management are but two examples of situations in which I believe that there is significant pressure, leading to a possible decline in the quality of service.
I said earlier that, owing to the risk-to-reward ratio, many organised crime gangs were moving their activities from drugs to illegal tobacco. However, it must be said that many of those who have become involved in the sale of smuggled tobacco and alcoholic products later use the moneys generated from it to fund the beginnings of a new activity: dealing in drugs.
It is not uncommon in my area—and, I know, having spoken to colleagues, in many other parts of the country as well—for some people involved in such activities to purchase cars and properties with cash. We are talking about sums of £30,000, £40,000, £50,000, and beyond. They have that money readily available because of their activities. It is big business, and business that cannot be ignored. It is inevitable that, as more and more individuals become involved in the sale of such goods, they start to encroach on what is seen as someone's else patch. As one might expect, that brings with it acts of violence.
In the scenario of illegal activity, some individuals generate significant sums for themselves, but there are always those who have to pay a price. In this instance, they are law-abiding citizens who pay their taxes. If we could put an end to all such smuggling tomorrow, just think of what we could do with the extra £4 billion.
We must also ensure that those who believe that they are doing nothing wrong by purchasing a few cheap cigarettes or a bottle of cheap whisky realise that they are involved in illegal activity. It is not uncommon for such


goods to be on sale in the workplace as well as the local pub or club. People need to understand that they could be jeopardising their livelihood if a responsible owner of a business or employer discovered what was happening where such people were gainfully employed.
I hope that my hon. Friend will take on board my concerns. This debate is about protecting independent retail business and children; it is about the loss of revenue to the Treasury; it is about adequately resourcing Customs and Excise, and not just to combat smuggling. Above all else, this debate is about supporting those who pay their taxes. I appreciate that much has been done, but there is much more to do.

The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) on securing this Adjournment debate, as I do my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard), who three years ago—to the day, I think—secured his debate on the subject.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries was absolutely right to focus on the following four issues. First, tobacco smuggling undermines the Government's health policy, which, because of the health risks associated with smoking, is to reduce the number of people who smoke. Secondly, there is the loss of revenue to the Government. Recent figures show that freight smuggling, which has been an area of huge growth in the past couple of years, costs in the order of £2.5 billion a year—not £4 billion, as Imperial Tobacco is saying.
Thirdly, my hon. Friend was right to point out the criminal activity associated with smuggling. I will turn to that and explain what we are doing. Such activity not only grows in our communities, but these people do not care to whom they sell the products. There are also international criminal gangs involved in organising such activity. Fourthly, and vitally, there is the question of the undermining of legitimate business, which has a right to look to Government to take action to protect it.
I shall deal briefly first with the scale of the problem that we face. We need to be clear, as my hon. Friend has said, about the type of people who are involved in this debate. This is not a debate about the opportunistic amateur who crosses the channel and comes back with a large supply of cigarettes, although that occurs and we have penalties to deal with it. This is a debate about the systematic freighting into this country of about 16 billion cigarettes a year—one in five of those that are smoked. It is an activity that has been growing. It is organised by criminal gangs who use freight consignments from places such as China, the far east, the Baltic, the Balkans and South Africa. Almost 80 per cent. of illegal cigarettes are smuggled in maritime freight.
Although there are those who would argue that this is a question of the duty that is charged on cigarettes, we should consider first that the products come from sources where no duty is applied—they are illegal cigarettes—and secondly, that even countries within the EU that impose lower duty rates, such as Italy and Spain, suffer the same problem.
In its report "UK Threat Assessment", published in May 2000, the National Criminal Intelligence Service estimated that 19 per cent. of all identified organised crime groups were engaged in excise fraud. It further

estimated that 21 per cent. of drug trafficking gangs also engaged in excise smuggling. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, some use tobacco smuggling to fund their drug smuggling activity. Previous convictions of those detected by customs involved in tobacco smuggling include people who have records of heroin and cocaine trafficking, manslaughter, arson, grievous bodily harm and a variety of other violent crimes. My hon. Friend is right to underline the seriousness of this issue.
I shall outline the Government's strategy on providing funding to deal with this challenge and touch on some of the problems to which he referred in Scotland. Following a detailed assessment of the scale of the problem, in order to show their determination to tackle the problem the Government announced on 1 March that we would devote a further £209 million to pay for almost 1,000 anti-smuggling staff in customs and X-ray machines to detect consignments of illegal goods in freight. The aim of the strategy is to target the highly organised criminal activity. There are 500 additional staff working at the frontier and inland, another 300 specialist investigators, almost 100 extra intelligence specialists and, as I have said, a national network of X-ray scanners that are helping customs to deal with the issue. Our strategy is to increase seizures and stem the flow so that the smuggling does not increase and, over three years, to reduce the smuggling.
In the first six months, we have seized almost 1,500 million cigarettes—930 million in the United Kingdom and 547 million overseas en route to the UK. We have broken up 25 of the organised gangs that supply the huge volumes of cigarettes. We have increased the penalties for those whom we catch. We are looking at seizing their resources and their vehicles, as well as imposing heavy penalties and terms of imprisonment. We are also making it clear to the tobacco manufacturers that we expect their co-operation in dealing with this problem. A substantial number of the cigarettes seized were produced in Britain, left this country, and have been smuggled back in. Clearly, there is a lot that tobacco manufacturers can do to help us to deal with that problem.
Although we are determined to deal with the white van trade—the smaller dealers crossing the channel—we are also dealing with the massive amount of freight and the gangs that organise it. Customs does not flinch from prosecuting the smugglers when that is necessary. New offences and penalties will be introduced on 1 July 2001. Pack marks on cigarettes, showing where they were produced and where duty was paid, will help enormously. From 1 July 2001, managers of pubs, clubs, factories and so on who knowingly allow their premises or workplaces to be used for the selling of unmarked tobacco will face substantial fines and will be prohibited from using their licences for up to six months. My hon. Friend mentioned internet selling. Customs is aware of the threat and has taken significant steps to tackle it. I note that Imperial Tobacco's chief executive commented on Customs action and its effectiveness.
Customs aims to tackle the problem on a nationwide scale. To achieve that, its resources are rightly targeted at the key entry points through which the vast majority of cigarettes come into the country. In addition, Customs is targeting the inland distribution of those cigarettes, to which my hon. Friend referred.
In Scotland, Customs strategy has been to hit the sellers again and again, using rapid response blitz techniques. That involves locally based officers plus mobile national
strike forces. My hon. Friend should look at the total resources that we apply to the pressure points, rather than at the geographical location by residence of some of our officers.
As I speak, a Customs strike force has been hitting the blatant inland sales of illicit cigarettes in Scotland and has deployed for this purpose an additional 30 officers over the past few days. I did not arrange that because of tonight's debate, but I am glad to be able to demonstrate to my hon. Friend and the House the way in which we are tackling the problem.
Over the weekend alone, Customs seized more than 100,000 cigarettes, 135 kilos of hand-rolling tobacco, 433 litres of alcohol, four vehicles and, as my hon. Friend rightly pointed out, one ice-cream van, which had been used to sell smuggled goods. More importantly, perhaps, Customs drove the sellers of smuggled tobacco out of one of the most notorious markets in Glasgow.
I should add that one of the officers was assaulted and required several stitches to a head wound. That shows the determination of those who seek to defend their illegal activity. Customs officers are facing increasing levels of violence. They have demonstrated their commitment to tackling the problem on our behalf. It is clear how intent the criminals are on making their money.
As a result of the strategy and both the inland and the frontier activity, customs officers have massively increased the number of illicit cigarettes that they have taken off the streets this year. In the first six months of this year, they seized more than 20 million illicit cigarettes in Scotland. That represents an increase of 300 per cent. on the same period last year. I say to my hon. Friend that those results do not demonstrate a lack of resources: quite the reverse. They show the determination to make sure that those resources are in place.
I take the opportunity of my hon. Friend's debate to point out that one of the huge problems that we are facing is the amount of counterfeit cigarettes entering the

country. Those are cigarettes that do not even reach the health standards that we require in the UK. Customs has seized counterfeit cigarettes. That demonstrates not only the unscrupulous nature of those selling the products—they do not mind to whom the cigarettes are sold, including children—but the fact that the organised criminal activity is not about tax. Those cigarettes bear no tax in the first place. We estimate that slightly more than 20 per cent. of the cigarettes seized this year are counterfeit. That puts massive pressure on health and on our resources.
My hon. Friend urged that we must ensure that resources are not taken from other areas—for example, VAT assurance work. The extra resources that the Government have made available are specifically to ensure that continued work in other areas, be it alcohol, drugs or VAT assurance, will be maintained and pursued with enough vigour.
I cannot overstress the seriousness of the development of this criminal activity over the past few years. However, I say with all confidence that we have the resources in place. The penalties are on stream. Legitimate traders will be defended, as will our children. We will seek out and prosecute offenders.
As my hon. Friend says, we should not be complacent. We must be vigilant. I can assure him and other right hon. and hon. Members that we will not ease our pressure, whether cigarettes, drugs or alcohol are being sold illegally, to ensure that the criminals do not profit from their activity, that they are prosecuted and that we seize any resources that they have to ensure that even if they serve a prison sentence, they will not receive money on their release. We will reinforce the Government's health policy.
I hope that that will go some way to reassure my hon. Friend. I also hope sincerely that over the next year I will be able to report positively to the House the progress that customs has made in stemming illegal trade.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at two minutes past Twelve midnight.